beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Part of the defendant's case
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") did not intend to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, but the court below accepted the facts charged and sentenced the defendant guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the intention of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or have predicted the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime shall 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, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, part and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, degree of the possibility of causing death, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425 Decided February 8, 2002; 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant has exercised serious violence suspected of committing the act of incompetence of the victims of ordinary times. As such, the court’s access prohibition order was issued at the time of the instant case, and the victim was still pending a divorce lawsuit filed against the Defendant, and ② the Defendant was on the date of the instant case.