All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the course of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was at the time of committing a homicide with the victim, but did not intend to murder the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s liability for murder, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (nine years of imprisonment, and confiscation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence. Whether the Defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, including the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, types of deadly weapons prepared, the part and repetition of attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the testimony at the court of first instance by the witness I, the following facts can be acknowledged. The Defendant and the victim, who had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, made a statement by the Defendant and the victim at one’s own investigative agency prior to his/her death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da101., the Defendant and the victim.

Furthermore, it has been doubtful that K's property has been deducted.