All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the event of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the intention of murder, the Defendant did not have the intention of murder, even if the Defendant did not do so at the time of the commission of a knife with the knife, and only attempted to inflict bodily injury on the victim’s face. The victim’s testimony at the lower court accords with this. 2) The Defendant was in a state of ability to either distinguish things or make decisions due to a mental disorder that was continuously suffered after a traffic accident occurred in 1982, or due to a knife and a knife

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the misunderstanding of the facts as to the Defendant’s intentional murder, the relevant legal doctrine does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. In a case where the Defendant did not have the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime but only knew or predicted that there was a possibility or risk of causing the death to another person, it may be deemed that there was an intentional murder. In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was only the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, whether there was the Defendant’s intentional murder should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances before and after committing the crime, including the background leading up to the crime, motive for committing the crime, type and use of the prepared deadly weapons, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of causing the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do590, Mar. 9, 201; 2001Do3997, Sept. 28, 2001).