Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As to the instant case, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court in the appellate trial.

The Defendant, when the victim living in the side house, expressed his front door door in order to have his front door knife and withdrawal of the property by threatening him with a mountain knife, but the victim took the sound "robbbbbing" with his left side knife, cut, sold, and boomed with a knife, knife, and knife.

The victims sent back to the G Hospital Central Center, but died of approximately 40 hours.

Victim's bereaved family members want to punish the defendant repeatedly.

The Defendant, immediately after committing the crime, brought a shower by entering the house in order to erase a trace of blood, and tried to find the house of the Defendant for the purpose of search, brought the police officers who found their house “I could not listen to sound outside the house due to shower sound.”

The Defendant, who completed a shower shower and took clothes, purchased tobacco, etc. at a convenience store using a physical card in which the Defendant was a home and a victim’s wall, and also changed the body to an internationalizedized in the victim’s wall, thereby escaping from the following prisoners of war.

As such, in light of the fact that the defendant's life in the course of taking another's property by force has taken away the deceased person's life and has inflicted any mental suffering on his/her family members, strict punishment corresponding to the defendant's liability is inevitable.

In addition, it is necessary to use the victim's check card and flee.