All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The Defendant explicitly withdraws his claim of mental disorder on the first trial date.

In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the defendant did not intend to kill the victim on February 22, 2017, although there was a single knife of the victim, there was no intention to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the intention of murder in the relevant legal doctrine is not necessarily deemed to have the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, and there is an intentional intent if the Defendant knew or predicted the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his/her own assault or other act.

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had no intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only was only the intent of murder or assault, the determination of whether the Defendant had the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be made by taking full account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, existence and nature of the prepared deadly weapon, the nature and repetition of the attack, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the crime, the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the act of avoidance after committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s reasoning duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the possibility or risk of the death of the victim by its own act at the time of committing the instant crime.