The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the intention of murder, etc., the criminal intent of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death to another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is so-called 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 the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, the type of deadly weapons prepared, the nature and repetition of attack, the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5590, Mar. 9, 2001; 2001Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002). The lower court, on the grounds the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the part of the victim, which was sufficiently recognized as having been aware of the victim’s motive and face to the extent that the latter part’s vertebro, and thereby, found the Defendant guilty of the part of the victim’s body and the part of the victim’s body.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned fact-finding.