beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Article 251(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "Article 251(1)" in Part 7 of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed "Article 250."
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely inflicted an injury on the victims of the improvement prepared to make a punishment without subjecting a net appraisal during the dispute between noise and the victim D, and does not have an intent to kill the victims.
B. Even if the facts charged of this case are found guilty, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by interested parties to the victim D due to noise problems between floors, and that the defendant did not have any record of having been punished other than once a fine was imposed due to gambling around 2000, and that the defendant was gird with the defendant's mistake, etc., the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for seven years sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The intent of murdering is not necessarily recognized as the purpose of murdering or as a planned intention of murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant had the criminal intent of murder should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to committing the crime, motive, existence of a deadly weapon prepared at the time of committing the crime, type, method of attack, degree of the likelihood of causing the death, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the Defendant’s head, title, and face of the victim D.