beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case against the defendant, even though he committed the crime of this case merely committed the crime in a purely remote manner while the defendant had a dispute with the victim after drinking with the victim, and did not have intention to murder, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the judgment.
B. In the event that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the foregoing.
C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In the crime of murdering a mistake of facts, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or have predicted the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also a so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, degree of repetition and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, and possibility of the occurrence of death result.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original court and the party in the trial, namely, ① the Defendant stated the criminal facts in the judgment of the lower court as “as of September 2010,” but the Defendant’s “as of October 201, 201” as follows.