A case where the intention of murder is recognized for the case where two parts are strong due to each item.

In a case where a victim died of cerebrovassis due to cerebrssis from two structural frames, the head of the victim’s head is strong in tariff classification, and the victim died due to cerebrssis from two structural frames, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit murder, if the victim died of cerebrssis from two structural frames.

Article 13 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2813 Decided January 24, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-chul

Supreme Court Decision 84Do324 delivered on December 6, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

75 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. The evidence cited by the court below is sufficient to sufficiently prove the criminal facts of the defendant, and it cannot be found that there was a false fact-finding due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing, such as the theory of litigation in the process of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding. In addition, as determined by the court below, it is sufficient to view that the defendant had criminal intent for murder if the victim died due to cerebrovassis and cerebral tension due to the dystroke of the dystroke, and the victim died due to the dystrophism and brain dystropha due to the dystropha of the dystropha, and on the premise that the fact-finding of the court below with regard to the criminal's criminal intent was not dealt with or there was no criminal intention, and there is no ground to charge the legal application of the court below on the ground that the defendant's so-called injury was merely the death of the defendant.

2. In light of the records, we cannot find out the circumstances that the criminal conduct in the judgment of the defendant was the act of self-defense or excessive defense, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the court below erred by the failure to apply Article 21 of the Criminal Act.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and a part of the number of detention days prior to the judgment is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju