The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The excessive knife of seized trees is knife.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant case: (a) the Defendant refused to communicate with himself/herself; and (b) found the Defendant in excess of his/her intention to move to the victim hotly; and (c) the Defendant was interested in the process of driving away from the victim who escaped; and (d) there was no intention to commit murder as a knife and knife.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant had the intention of murder is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Dob. The sentencing of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s determination that it was unlawful to accept the Defendant’s request for attachment order even though it was difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had a considerable probability to commit murder again.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. (i) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent of murder 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 one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain intention is so-called willful negligence. Whether the Defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime is bound to be determined by considering the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and use of deadly weapons prepared, the part and repetition of the attack, the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, i.e., taking the victim into account in advance at his/her residence before delivery.