A. Whether the judgment of the court below constitutes an unlawful act in a case where the scarproo was found to be erroneous even though the tool used for committing murder and attempted murder was both horses

B. Whether the intent of the crime of murder is sufficient to recognize and see the fact that the victim may die

(c) The case holding that there was a criminal intent of murdering since the defendant was out of the place after he was strokeed with the stroke of the female 9 years of age;

A. Although there is an error of law that the court below erred by finding scarf as erroneous even though the Gu used for the crime by the defendant was not Scarf but the defendant's reported 70 mm in length at the time of increase, this falls within the scope of the identity of the charges, and it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant's right to defense and does not affect the formation of the crime or sentencing conditions, and such error of law does not constitute an unlawful act that should reverse the judgment below.

B. The intent of the crime of murder is sufficient to recognize and check the fact that the victim may die due to his own act, and there is no need or need to aim at the victim’s death, and dolusent intent, not a conclusive intention, is sufficient.

C. The case holding that the defendant was guilty of murdering at least at the time of committing the crime, on the ground that, since the defendant was merely a female child of 9 years of age who is merely a child of 9 years of age and could easily control the resistance, he was cut off the victim's stroke, and then left the stroke, he could not be deemed to have known the fact that the victim could have died due to such harmful act.

A. Article 391(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Articles 13 and 250 of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Do2564 delivered on February 9, 1988 (Gong1988,548) 88Do692 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1888,1050) 93Do3612 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1373)

Defendant

Attorney Cho Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94No1290 delivered on August 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The ninety days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief) are examined.

1. According to the evidence of the trial, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant scarp victim's scarp, who was the father of the non-indicted 1's former wife (1984.10.5 years old, 9 years old, 1984) went into a dry field that does not grow 17 meters away from the road on the her husband and went into a dry field where he does not cultivate the victim's face several times, and the victim opened scarp's head debt and entered the left elbbbow with the victim's head scarp's head scarp's head scarp's head scarp divided into two parts on both hand, scarp's head into the ground for about four minutes, and scards over two times, and caused the victim to go back without leaving the victim's body.

2. After comparing the evidence adopted by the court below with the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just, and as pointed out in the family litigation theory, even though the Gu used for the above crime is about 70 cm of the defendant's reported volume (70 cm of length at the time of increase), it belongs to the scope of the identity of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant's right of defense and does not affect the formation of the crime or sentencing conditions, and such mistake of the court below does not constitute an unlawful act that should reverse the judgment of the court below, and the theory that the defendant's own suspension of the crime by himself and brought about the road by causing the victim due to the occurrence of the crime, in light of the consistent statement of the victim from the immediately after the case, it cannot be said that the court below's measure that did not accept it was erroneous, and it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence by recognizing facts as to other points out by the theory of lawsuit without evidence.

3. The intent of the crime of murder is sufficient to predict the fact that the victim might die due to his own act, and it is not necessary to wish or aim at the victim's death, and it is satisfied with dolusent intent, not with conclusive intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do3612, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 88Do692, Jun. 14, 198; etc.). If the facts are identical as above, the defendant is merely a female child of 9 years old, so long as he was cut down and cut down, so long as he did not recognize the fact that the victim could die due to such a harmful act, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention of murder at least at the time of the crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's attempted murder, and there is no error of law as otherwise pointed out.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed on the grounds that all the arguments are without merit, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)