A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, such as proof of alcohol, depression, and depression.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (12 years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had a record of having been treated as a obsciscence for alcohol prior to the instant crime, but there is no circumstance to acknowledge that the Defendant was suffering from eutic evidence and uls.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, in light of the circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the crime.

The defendant's assertion cannot be accepted as it seems that such an ability has reached a weak state.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of all of his own crimes and reflects the mistake; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes contingently; (c) the agreement with the victim of the instant murdering; and (d) the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the suspended sentence.

On the other hand, the defendant tried to kill another victim without any particular reason even though he/she kills the victim by using a knife, which is a deadly weapon, and tried to kill another victim.

In addition, the defendant stolen the money of the victim who kills on his job.

The defendant's method of crime is very dangerous, and the result is also the result.