beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant and the respondent for an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") asserted the misunderstanding of facts and the incomplete hearing did not have any intent to kill the victim since they did not assault the victim in a timely fashion with the victim's temporary and violent attitude, and did not anticipate the victim's death. The victim was injured due to beer disease and did not have any additional assault against the victim. Thus, the court below's judgment that recognized the defendant's intention to commit murder was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and incomplete hearing.
B. The lower court’s punishment and incidental disposition (three years of imprisonment and ten years of an attachment order) against the Defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing and the period of the attachment order, are excessively heavy and thus unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s case is not necessarily required for the purpose of murder or the planned intention of murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is acknowledged as dolusent intention. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of bodily injury or assault, the issue of whether the Defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime is bound to be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, existence and type of the prepared deadly weapon, method of attack, the nature and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of causing the death, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002; 2010Do15144, Jan. 13, 201). Furthermore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.