A. Defendants’ improper sentencing (Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment and fine of 3 million won, Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and 2 years of suspended execution)

B. The Prosecutor (the Defendant A)’s improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion.

B. In our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial, and the first trial sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(c)

With respect to Defendant A, the lower court: (a) deemed that the nature of the crime of this case is extremely poor and thus requires strict liability; (b) abandoned the body of the victim to conceal the crime; (c) deleted CCTV and the CCTV of the building from the hospital; (d) denied the fact of medication in the course of the investigation; and (e) did not reach an agreement with the victim’s bereaved family members; and (b) determined the sentence by taking into account the number of times of medication and the circumstances of medication of the above Defendant C; and (c) comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime.

(d)

The grounds for each of the unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendants and the Prosecutor appear to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the Defendants, and the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the trial.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendants and prosecutor's argument of sentencing are without merit.

3. The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.