1. The part of the judgment below regarding the defendant's case shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years;

3. The defendant;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of mistake, the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have the intent to murder the victim C at the time of committing this part of the crime.

(2) The defendant asserted that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the remaining crimes, but the above argument was withdrawn on the second trial of the court below.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor ex officio applied for the amendment of the indictment with regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) among the names of the crimes in the facts charged of this case as "special intimidation"; "Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act" among the applicable provisions of this case as "Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act"; since this court permitted the amendment, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. In the 1-related legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive, so-called willful negligence is recognized. In the event that the Defendant argues that there was no intention of murder at the time of the commission of the crime, and only the Defendant was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the Defendant was at the time of the commission of the crime.