2. The lower court: (a) took into account the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant voluntarily surrendered on the day of the commission of the crime; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to commit suicide due to health problems and economic difficulties, such as cerebral cerebrovascular; and (d) the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendant’s residence was discharged due to the instant crime; (d) the five victims suffered bodily injury; and (e) the victims suffered bodily injury; and (e) the victims suffered no damage therefrom; and (e) took into account the unfavorable circumstances, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant.

In full view of the conditions of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, rather than deeming that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.