(b) homicide;

(c) Injury or injury to the present building;

(d) Finding buildings and fire prevention;

(e) An special injury;

(f) Damage to property;

(g) Violence;

H. Special Violence

1. A prosecutor;

The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance court that did not recognize the fact at the time of each of the instant crimes, and mitigated the Defendant from a mental disability. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

2. The defendant;

Examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, as indicated in the records, the sentencing of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for life cannot be deemed extremely unfair, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

The Defendant stated in the sign of the appellate brief that “the Defendant was in violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules, or there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles,” and that “the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability (the state of mental disorder or mental disorder)” and did not state specific reasons therefor. Therefore, this assertion is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

The Defendant and the Prosecutor’s final appeal are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik in charge

Justices Min Min-young

Justices Noh Tae-ok