All appeals filed by the defendant, the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order and prosecutor shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant, the applicant for a medical treatment and custody and the respondent for an attachment order and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") guilty of committing the crime of paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of the original trial, even though they did not intend to kill the victim H.

In the event that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to the divesive disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case, the court below recognized only the state of mental disorder. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the defendant's mental disorder.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, the intention of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also unclear intention. In a case where the Defendant contests that he had no intention to commit murder at the time of the commission of the crime, whether the Defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the commission of the crime shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive, type and usage of the deadly weapon prepared, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of the death.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant was followed by the victim H.