[1] The criteria for recognizing the criminal intent in the crime of murder, and the criteria for determining the criminal intent in a case where the defendant argues that the defendant did not confession the criminal intent of murder but only had the criminal intent of bodily injury or assault

[2] The case holding that there is a criminal intent of murdering in the act of a person who had been aware of a well-known state of a human body's rank in the act of causing the death of a victim by means of an alcohol without the consent of the defendant

[1] The criminal intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the planned intention of murder, but 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 recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the defendant asserts that the defendant was not led to the crime of murder but only committed the crime of bodily injury or assault, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the circumstances leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the existence of the prepared deadly weapon, the degree of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, the existence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the result of the crime after the crime, etc.

[2] The case holding that there is a criminal intent of murdering in the act of a person who had been aware of a well-known level of the human body by determining the amount of the victim's boom by means of alcohol and caused the death of the victim

[1] Articles 13 and 250 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 13 and 250 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2564 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988, 548), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3612 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1373), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2511 delivered on December 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 733), Supreme Court Decision 98Do980 delivered on June 9, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1932)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jin-hun

Seoul High Court Decision 2000No320 decided May 10, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. 95 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

The criminal intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the planned intention of murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one's own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is so-called dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do980, Jun. 9, 1998). In a case where the defendant asserts that the defendant was only guilty of murder or assault, without confessioning the criminal intent of murder, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances of the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the parts and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, the possibility of causing the death, the possibility of occurrence of the result of the crime, and the existence of the result of the crime before and after the crime.

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the defendant was guilty of committing murder in this case on the ground that he was aware of the breath of a human body as a breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's b

In addition, even though the defendant's act of causing the death of the victim by causing the death of the victim was a cause of assaulting the defendant, such as with the wheels of the defendant first, the replacement of the defendant, and the increase in the replacement of the defendant, since the defendant's act is recognized as based on the criminal intent of murder as legitimately recognized by the court below, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as an act of self-defense or excessive defense. Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal to this different purport cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)