2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of all crimes, and his mistake is divided, the victims have agreed with the victims, and the victims have not want to punish the defendant.

However, the Defendant not only has the record of being punished several times due to murder, violent crime, and drunk driving, but also committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to murder, etc., in light of the form and method of each of the crimes of this case, the liability for the crime of this case is grave, and there is no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the original judgment and the punishment, and in consideration of all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 283(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, among the judgment below, each “victim” was added by mistake to “the victim” of the Criminal Act No. 1879, Dec. 8, 2017, and the “Article 284 of the Criminal Act” following the “Article 284 of the Criminal Act” of the column 2 for the application of the Act on the Criminal Procedure. As such, it is apparent that the ex officio deletion is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on the Criminal Procedure.