The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One excessive (No. 1) seized, and galgal lusium 04.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (the attempted attempted murder) is merely a knife with a knife which the victim was holding for defense by criticizeing himself, and the defendant did not have the intention of murder.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts as to finding guilty of attempted murder charges.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (the attempted crime)

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion to the same effect as in the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the existence of murder, on the grounds that, even though the Defendant did not have a knife a knife as a net failure, the Defendant was aware or predicted of the possibility or risk of the death of the victim by using a knife several times, on the ground that he was aware of the possibility or risk of the death of the victim.

B. The criminal intent of murdering at the time of the commission of the crime does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned 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 conclusive. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the commission of the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the defendant was the criminal intent of murder at the time of the commission of the crime should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and use of the prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of causing the death.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5590 delivered on March 9, 2001, etc.).