A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

(a) Mental and physical disorder;

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental suffering.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Punishment sentenced by the first instance court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental disorder

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court are as follows: ① the Defendant was unable to divorce the victim before the judgment; ② the Defendant found the victim’s residence at the time of the instant case due to the lack of contact; ② the Defendant could not immediately divorce the victim because he did not have any money to divorce; ③ the Defendant was in a dispute with the victim, and ③ the victim was scambling the victim and scam the victim’s view that he did not want to take money to divorce; ③ the victim was scambling the victim, and scambling the victim, and scambling the victim, and the Defendant was scambling the victim at the time of the instant crime; ④ the Defendant was able to look at the victim’s body and the floor at the scene of the crime, and the Defendant did not appear to have his motive or scambling the victim’s body before and after the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing

The Defendant was killed of a female during the long-term dispute with the victim who was sleeped by a couple's death. As a result of the instant crime, the victim was deprived of her severe life, and the victim's self-slocks and pains caused by the death of the victim, etc. are recognized as disadvantageous elements for sentencing.

However, the defendant surrenders himself to the police immediately after committing the crime, and is aware of his own crime.

It also recognizes a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the victim and the victim have been divided for a long time, and the victim have been challenged with the victim at the time of divorce in this case, and that the victim committed the crime in this case in a contingent manner by breaking it into the horse of the victim who booms himself and herself, that there was no record of punishment before, that there was no record of punishment before, that there is an old age of 77 years old and no good health, and that it is difficult for the victim's children to live in a prison for the defendant.

Considering the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the background and circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. comprehensively, the punishment sentenced by the first instance court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles and choice of punishment on the facts constituting the crime;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment for Imprisonment)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

State of Morse

Edive Exchange