The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One (No. 1), beer's disease with seized straws (No. 1), and beer's disease.

Defendant 1) The summary of the grounds for appeal recognized that there was a misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting him due to beer, etc. at the time of the instant crime, but there was no intention to commit an assault against the victim as contingent.

2) The Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to dementia, depression, etc., which was suffering from ordinary pain.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

The criminal intent of murder in the relevant legal doctrine on the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to his own act.

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 committing the crime, the type of deadly weapons prepared, the nature and repetition of the attack, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the death, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006). In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the court below and the court below duly adopted and investigated by evidence, the Defendant was aware at least that there was a possibility or risk of the death of the victim by his own act at the time of committing the instant crime.

It is reasonable to view it.

The court below found the defendant guilty of murder.

The decision is proper and proper, and it is by the defendant.