A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder, namely, the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state of having lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the lack of impulse ability at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The prior Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise from this premise.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, since the new sentencing data was not submitted by the said court.

In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy or hulled and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable is rejected.

2. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is dismissed.