beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to each attempted murder), the Defendant did not have any awareness and intent to murder the other victims except the deceased D.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, since all of the facts charged were found guilty on the homicide.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (25 years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant
A. “ intentional act,” which is a subjective element of the relevant legal doctrine, is bound to be proved by an indirect or circumstantial fact that has considerable relevance thereto (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645 Decided February 23, 2006). Whether the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by taking into account the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, the motive for the crime, the motive for the crime, the types of deadly weapons prepared, the nature and repetition of the crime, the degree of the occurrence of the death, the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the consequence of the crime after committing the crime, and other objective circumstances before and after the crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425 Decided February 8, 2002; 200Do5590 Decided March 9, 201).
The court below found the defendant guilty as follows: ① the defendant thought that the victim was the same person as D because the victim's injury occurred to the repeated compulsory execution of the victim D's injury (the circumstance leading up to the defendant's crime) ② the defendant's injury with the victim's injury with the victim's injury with the victim's injury or with the victim's injury (the motive and intent of the crime are inferred in the horse and behavior of the defendant), ③ the size of the improvement; and