The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no intention to commit murder against the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of murdering a mistake of facts does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. 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, whether 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 the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, the nature and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, the possibility of causing the death, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., deadly weapons used by the defendant, which are: (a) the last day of the weapons, as protein, and are made of metal; (b) the defendant extracted only protein by taking a protein from protein; and (c) the defendant landeds the victim by taking a protein from protein; and (d) the victim’s part was the end of the protein, which is the part of the protein, protein, protein, protein, etc.; and (e) the risk of causing damage to the part of the person’s trees and death due to blood transfusion, may be easily anticipated by anyone; and (e) the victim’s part of the protein’s part, protein, protein, protein, protein, protein, and protein, protem. 27m.