Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the Defendant were responsible for the mistake of the part of the case, and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) had a knife of the victim D on March 4, 2017, but did not intend to murder

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of attempted murder among the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

The Defendant with mental and physical disorder shall be mitigated inasmuch as he was drunk at the time of committing the crime of murder in this case and was physically and mentally lost or physically weak at the time of committing the crime.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The court below's order to attach an electronic tracking device to the defendant for a period of ten years, but it is unfair that the attachment is too short.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts on the Defendant’s case, the relevant legal doctrine does not necessarily necessarily mean that the intention of murder or the planned intention of murder is required, and there was an intentional intent if the Defendant knew or predicted that there was a possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his/her own act, etc.

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no murder intent at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the intentional murder or assault committed, the determination of whether the Defendant had the intent to murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be made by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for committing the crime, existence and nature of the prepared deadly weapons, the nature and repetition of the crime, the likelihood of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, the existence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the act of avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015).