The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, did not have the intent to commit murder against the victim, and only had the intent to commit an injury or assault.

B. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the criminal intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to its own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive as well as it is so-called willful negligence.

In a case where the Defendant did not have the intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the intent to commit murder or assault, whether or not the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for committing the crime, the existence, type, and method of the prepared deadly weapons, the father and repetition of the attack, the likelihood of the occurrence of the consequence

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the possibility or risk of the death of the victim due to his or her own act at least the time of the instant crime and that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the possibility and risk of the death of the victim. In so doing, the lower court determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the intent of murder as committing the instant crime, on the grounds that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant would have come to the instant crime.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and it is hard to see that there is an error of mistake of facts alleged

B. As to the claim of mental disability