All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

A seized white mack (Evidence..)

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any intention to commit murder at the time of committing the crime of KRW 1 in the first instance judgment.

2) At the time of committing the crime of the second instance judgment, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness.

3) The sentence sentenced to the first and second instances of sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six years, confiscation, and second instance: imprisonment for six months) is too unreasonable.

(a) Prosecutor 1) The sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment that was unfair in sentencing is too unfortunate and unfair;

2) It is unreasonable for the first instance court to dismiss the request for an attachment order against the Defendant to dismiss the attachment order.

2. Determination

A. Upon the pronouncement of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s ex officio determination, the Defendant appealed against the first and second lower judgment, and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the first and second lower judgment, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the first and second judgments against the Defendant in the first and second instances is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second judgment cannot be exempt from the reversal of the entirety of the lower judgment.

Notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the remaining arguments except the defendant and the prosecutor's unfair argument in sentencing are still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following are examined.

B. In determining the Defendant’s assertion of homicide as to the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act, and its perception or prediction is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). The first instance court duly adopted and investigated the crime of murder.