The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Track, seized (road 3.5 cm x vertical length 22 cm).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) attempted to receive a apology from employees of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Steering Committee for the Co., Ltd. of the 13th floor “Seoul Jongno-gu Building” (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”); and (b) during that process, the Defendant merely attempted to kill the victim only with a knife by making the victim’s horse clife in a sudden manner; and (c) did not intend to murder the victim.

In fact, prior to the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant had visited the instant fish farming institute twice, but did not commit any crime, and in light of the fact that the attack was discontinued during the commission of the instant crime and the victim was set aside, the Defendant did not have the intention of murder.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The criminal intent of murder of the relevant legal doctrine is not necessarily recognized as the purpose of murder or the planned intention of murder. 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 a so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime should 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, type and usage of the crime, the degree of the occurrence of the prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of death (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009).