The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

One industrial knife (No. 1) which has been seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event that there was no intention to kill the victim at the time of the crime of this case, the court below accepted the facts charged and sentenced the defendant guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the intent 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. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the commission of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the Defendant was guilty of murder shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the seriousness and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, the degree of the likelihood of causing death, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6425 Decided February 8, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 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, who believed that the victim, who is an employee of the drinking house, would pay the drinking house value to the convenience store operated by himself/herself, and believed that the Defendant would put the horses to the convenience store of the Defendant, and caused the victim’s loss of her head from following behind the Defendant, such as the victim, who would have entered the convenience store of the Defendant.