The argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing, thereby infringing on the principle of balance of punishment and the essential contents of the principle of responsibility, by deviating from the limitation of sentencing discretion, constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, examining the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, there are significant grounds to recognize that the amount of punishment by the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced 17 years to imprisonment with prison labor, is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the national defense counsel.

subsection (b) of this section.

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