beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the homicide of the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested, the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).
(2) The Defendant’s sentence (a fine of 18 years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection, and attachment order of an electronic tracking device) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable. The Defendant’s sentence (a fine of 18 years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection, and attachment order of an electronic tracking device) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. The criminal intent of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder in determining the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing 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 willful negligence.
In a case where the Defendant did not have the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the Defendant had the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for committing the crime, method of the existence and use of the prepared deadly weapons, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of the result
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do2231 Decided August 18, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, witness I and witness G of the lower court, who jointly stated the situation at the time of the crime, have returned to the location of the victim.