A. In light of the fact that Defendant reflects the Defendant’s depth on the instant crime, that the instant crime is a contingent crime, and that the victim C is not punished by the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment (a prison term of 18 years and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor is very poor, that the method of committing the instant crime is harsh, and that there is no agreement with the bereaved family members of the victim D, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is determined by the following circumstances: (a) the kitchen knife of the Defendant prepared in advance to kill the victim D at once; (b) the victim C is also about attempted murder; (c) the victim C is extremely cruel and highly poor in the number of crimes; (d) the result of the crime is too serious; and (e) the victim D’s bereaved family members are not agreed to do so; (b) the victim C appears to have an attitude against the Defendant’s mistake; (c) the victim was agreed with the victim C and the victim did not want to punish the Defendant; and (d) the victim did not have any criminal record other than a fine once due to drinking; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and circumstances before and after the crime do not seem to be unfair by taking full account of all the sentencing conditions stated in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive and circumstance before and after the crime.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.