2. Determination:

A. The lower court: (a) committed the instant crime: (a) committed the instant crime: (b) was committed by the Defendant, with the brick view to the Defendant’s preparation for about five years; (c) 82 years of age living together with his face and head several years of age; (d) kills the victim’s chests, etc. on five occasions; (c) the method of the relevant crime is very harsh; (d) the nature of the crime is very poor; and (e) murder is a serious crime that infringes on the right to life, which serves as the basis for human dignity and value; (e) the Defendant’s aforementioned act constitutes a serious consequence that may lose the victim’s life, which would result in the loss of an excessive life; (d) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the bereaved family; (e) the Defendant did not have been subject to criminal punishment for the last thirty-seven years; (e) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency immediately after the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant was able to have committed a dementia patient living with the victim; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been sentenced to imprisonment for five years.

B. According to the records, considering the circumstances cited in the grounds of appeal, such as “the injured party continuously led to the instant crime in the caric book in a manner of verbal abuse, etc.”, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfairly heavy.

The grounds for appeal are without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.