The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of deviation from discretion in sentencing in violation of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court is ultimately unfair for sentencing.

Examining the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age character and behavior intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the amount of punishment of the lower court, 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 argument that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the crime of this case is already accepted by the first instance court and the lower court, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal.

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