beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Part 1 of the instant case: (a) the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not intend to commit an act of murdering the victim from the beginning; (b) the victim, who was dissatisfied with the desire to commit the instant crime at the time of the commission of the crime, was assaulted first from the injured party; and (c) the head of the victim was deducted from his/her knife so as to escape from the situation; and (d) there was no intent to murder the victim.
Therefore, the charge of this case is not guilty.
Although the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence (a life imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant for a period of ten years is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Part 1 of the case concerning the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not necessarily acknowledged as the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder in the relevant legal doctrine, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also so-called willful negligence.
In such a case, whether the Defendant had the intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, including the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive for the crime, the type of used weapon prepared, the father and repetition of the attack, and the likelihood of the occurrence of the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006). (B) Specific judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.