The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant and the requester for an attachment order or the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter the defendant) did not intend to kill the victim, the court below convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

Sentencing improper sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

(d)

Although there is no risk that the defendant might recommit the murder crime, the court below's order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of 10 years is improper.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case concerning the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is so-called dolusent intentional intent. In the case where the defendant asserts that there was only no criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, whether or not the defendant had the criminal intent of murder should 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, type of the crime, the nature and repetition of the prepared deadly weapon, the degree of the possibility of the occurrence of the death (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 206).