The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, considering various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age character and character intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment with prison labor, is extremely unfair, even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the national defense counsel.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that he should receive treatment in a custody center is not a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.