In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order of observation and the appeal by the prosecutor are all dismissed.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (22 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

According to the records of this case as to the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical loss or mental weakness, the Defendant may recognize the fact of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime. However, the Defendant sent the victim to a vehicle owned by the Defendant and taken back knife at a fishing room where the Defendant was accompanied by the glass of the vehicle.

In light of the fact that the victim was the victim, the defendant was aware of the place where the crime was committed, and the victim was led to the vehicle to kill the victim in knife. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed the crime even when he was under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things and make decisions.

The defendant's mental and physical loss or mental weakness is without merit.

Some circumstances may be taken into account such as the following: (a) an contingent crime of an unfair argument for sentencing; (b) a person has no other criminal history except a person who was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving Driving) in around 2008; (c) and (d) a confession of one’s own crime; (b) however, the circumstances already considered in the lower court; and (c) the Defendant has aggravated marital relationship by threatening the victim, who is his spouse, as a dangerous object on July 7, 2015; and (d) the Defendant attempted to have the marital relationship smooth through a conversation even though the investigation into the crime was commenced, and only the suspicion of the victim, such as monitoring the victim’s mobile phone text messages, was raised on October 24, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13518, Oct. 24, 2015>