beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) committed a misunderstanding of facts (the attempted part of murder) that the Defendant committed an assault as stated in the facts charged against the victim, or there was no intention to kill the victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Part 1 of the case concerning the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder for the purpose of murder, but it 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 definite, but it is so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain. In the case where the defendant asserts that there was no intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the intention of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for committing the crime, the existence and type of the prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, the possibility of causing death, etc.
In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding a specific judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006). (b) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, at least, the defendant had awareness of the fact that at least the defendant may lose his/her life due to the act of the defendant, such as the criminal facts stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment below, and thus, the court below determined that the defendant