The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

One knife (No. 1), a kitchen, and a kitchen, which have been seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) did not intend to kill the victim C by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or have predicted that there was possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to his own act. The recognition or prediction is not only definite but also uncertain but also it is so-called dolusent intentional negligence. In a case where the Defendant contests that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault without confession of murder, whether or not the Defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime is justifiable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is reasonable in view of the following: (a) the circumstance leading up to the Defendant; (b) motive and type of murder; (c) method of attack; (d) the degree of the occurrence of the consequence of murder; (d) the existence of the consequence of murder after the crime; and (e) the degree of perception or likelihood of the victim’s bodily act before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do223120).

This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(b).