The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, caused two arms of the victim, and caused the victim to go beyond the latter, and the victim was faced with head in Bera, the victim was not able to anticipate that the above degree of shock was the death of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant could have sufficiently predicted the fact that the victim might die due to the instant assault, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, as a result of the crime of assault and death, in addition to the causal relationship between the result of assault and death, there should be negligence, i.e., predictability of the result of death, and whether such probability exists or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do512, Sept. 13, 2012). The Defendant would not accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion, since it is difficult to view that the Defendant could have sufficiently predicted the fact that the victim might die due to the instant assault, and that the Defendant would normally suffer from an external injury upon the victim’s head and body while drinking together with the victim’s hair during the instant crime, and that the victim’s hair was faced with the victim’s hair and the victim’s hair was faced with the victim’s hair.