(영문) 대법원 2011.1.13. 선고 2010도15144 판결

The intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as a purpose of murder or a planned intention of murder, but rather it is possible or predicted that there exists a possibility or risk of causing another person's death due to one's own act, and its awareness or predictability is conclusive as well as the so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain. 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 bodily injury or assault, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime should be determined by considering the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002; 2006Do7344, Apr. 14, 2006).

Examining the above legal principles, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, we affirm that the court below recognized the charge of attempted murder of this case for the reasons stated in its holding, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to intentional murder, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is not deemed that the defendant was in a certain state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant did not have or did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision. Thus, the court below's measure of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the defendant's mental and physical disorder is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misapprehension

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.