살인등
Defendant
In addition, both the medical care and custody applicant and the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.
The main reasons for appeal are as follows: (a) the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who requested the custody order and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") (30 years of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.
The Defendant, who lost his defense counsel, was in a state of mental and physical loss at the time of committing the instant crime.
The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
Judgment
According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of the loss of mental and physical health of the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime, it is acknowledged that the Defendant had been in a state of mental and physical weakness due to mental illness, such as damage, etc., but in full view of the following: (a) the background leading to the instant crime; (b) the details of the instant crime; (c) the means and method of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s attitude to make statements in this court; and (c) the Defendant’s mental appraisal result against the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant
Therefore, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.
The sentencing of each prosecutor's and defense counsel's unfair argument of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate range, taking into account the factors that are conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
There are circumstances such as evaluating or maintaining the first-class sentencing determination in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.