All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 1: (a) the Defendant did not sleep the victim; (b) was drinking the victim with the exemption of the Defendant’s clothes; and (c) did not have any intention to commit murder. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The sentence of imprisonment (seven years) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies his/her intention, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime, due to the nature of an object, the fact must be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that are relevant to the criminal intent of the criminal in light of the nature of the object. Whether what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance ought to be determined by means of a reasonable analysis and determination of the connection of the fact by using close observation or analysis records based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do8356, Feb. 25, 2010; 2012Do7377, Aug. 30, 2012). Also, the criminal of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, but rather, if he/she knows or anticipates the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his/her own act, and what constitutes an indirect fact that is considerably related, ought to be determined by means of a reasonable analysis and determination of the connection of the fact (see, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20086.