The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the assertion of homicide as to the violation of the law without the intention of murder, the criminal intent of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the planned intention of 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 willful negligence. In a 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, the issue of whether the defendant had the criminal intent of murder is justifiable in light of the logical and empirical reasoning of the judgment below, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the part and repetition of the attack, the possibility of the occurrence of death, and other objective circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7416, Apr. 27, 2016).

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, as to whether the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness, thereby changing things under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, or misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder.