The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no intention to kill the victim by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent in the crime of murder is not necessarily required to be determined by the objective of murder or the planned intention of murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or have predicted that there is possibility or risk of causing another person's death due to one's own act. The recognition or predictability of the crime is not definite, but it is so-called dolusent intentional negligence even if it is uncertain. In a case where the defendant contests that the defendant did not confession the crime of murder and only there was an injury or assault, the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime is justifiable in view of the circumstances leading up to the crime, motive, type and repetition of the crime, the degree of the occurrence of the crime, the possibility of avoidance of the result after the crime, and the objective circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2231, Aug. 18, 200).

This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

B. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing, the victim who was divorced from the instant crime.