(b) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

The lower court rejected Defendant’s assertion of mental disability as to the conviction of murder and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disability.

The assertion of the purport that the judgment of the original court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of examining and determining sentencing constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing. However, examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and means of the instant crime, and the consequences of the instant crime, etc., as indicated in the records, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence of the lower court that upheld the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced the Defendant 25 years imprisonment with prison labor is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa