If it is not deemed to be a mistake of the object

The mistake of fact that may cause the expansion of criminal intent is an act to commit a recognized crime, and it is problematic only when the crime that was not perceived by this act is realized. As such, the death of a victim is merely an act that occurred in the same time and place as the victim would have taken the knife of the knife when the defendant tried to kill another third party, and the act to kill a third party, and there is no room for a problem of mistake of fact, unless the victim has died by the act to kill a third party.

Article 15 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daejeon District Court (72 Gohap17) in the first instance

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a short term of two years and three years.

One hundred and seventy days out of the detention days before sentencing of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that there is a violation of the law that affected the judgment of the court below. In other words, even if there is no criminal intent as to the realized fact, even though there is no criminal intention as to the realized fact, if there is no criminal intention as to the real fact, it is found that the facts have been realized, and thus, the court below determined the criminal intention as to the realized fact, and it was a knife or a knife mistake. The court below found the defendant's intention to kill Non-Indicted 1, and found the defendant not guilty of the murder, which is the principal charge, because there was no criminal intention to kill Non-Indicted 2. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the law as to the crime of murder, which is the principal charge. First, even if the defendant's mother and the non-indicted 1 were aware of the fact, it constitutes self-defense by the only means of violence against the defendant and the non-indicted 1, which led the defendant to the death of the defendant.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the death of Nonindicted Party 1 as to the prosecution of this case, which was the primary charge of murder, and explained the following reasons by rejecting the principal charge of murder. In other words, the Defendant, on January 10, 1972, was forced to kill the Defendant from Nonindicted Party 1 and 2 without any reason as stated in the above facts charged, and the Defendant was able to kill the Defendant as well as his mother and her knife the Defendant’s knife at the right time, by using the same method as the Defendant’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s k.

This is because, "A", the knife of the so-called knife's knife and knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's death's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's.

The following reasons for appeal by the defense counsel are as follows. However, since the death of the victim non-indicted 2 was not caused by acts to protect the unfair infringement of non-indicted 1 as seen above, without any need to examine the remaining requirements, the defendant's crime of this case is legitimate. The second ground for appeal by the defense counsel is that the defendant is self-defense. However, as seen earlier, the defendant's health room is as follows: the defendant's second ground for appeal is that the defendant's knife and knife are left, knife and knife are changed to the knife, knife and knife so that the victim can knife the right side, the judgment of the court below that determined the defendant's death as a crime of injury to the defendant's knife is just, and there is no reason to conclude that the defendant's negligence merely caused the death of the counsel's death, and the third ground for appeal that the court below found the defendant's long-term punishment of this case was legitimate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which accepted the same grounds for appeal by the defense counsel, and the members are again decided as follows.

3. Criminal facts and evidence relations against the defendant admitted as a party member are the same as those above of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In contrast to the law, the court below's judgment falls under Article 259 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since there is room for considering the circumstances of the defendant's crime of this case as seen in the above reasons for reversal, it is a juvenile under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant is a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act. Thus, within the scope of punishment prescribed by Article 54 of the same Act, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of two years and a long term of three years, and 170 days out of the number of detention days before the sentence of the court below is sentenced pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act.

4. The prosecutor's appeal is not accepted on the grounds of above, and the defendant's appeal is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)