All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not have motive or intent to kill the victim, and there was no fact that the victim’s left part part of the pipe on the day of the instant case, and the victim’s head was fluenced due to drinking.

2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a physical and mental weak state under the influence of alcohol.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles of the Defendant’s crime of murder does not necessarily require the intent of murdering or planned murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is so-called dolusent intent. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was only no criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder, whether or not the Defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and usage of the crime, the nature and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of the death (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7396, Sept. 21, 2017). The lower court’s determination on whether the Defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, based on the evidence duly admitted by the lower court.