살인
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The summary of the judgment of the court below was prosecuted on the charge that the Defendant murdered the victim's neck from the inside of the Defendant's house to stroke because of the electric flag line, etc. while disputing the Defendant's wife's money (75 years of age) and his family, etc., but the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged through a participatory trial and recognized the Defendant guilty of murdering the victim in the same manner as the written indictment (the result of the verdict on the charge of whether or not the seven jury members is guilty is guilty) but the victim was dissipatedd with the victim's ordinary money and the second ancillary, and continued verbal abuse or assault from the victim and the second ancillary. At the time of the instant case, the victim and the second ancestor continued to have committed a contingent crime at the end of the said dispute, and thus, the existence of the sentencing grounds was the key issue in the court below's judgment. As a result, the court below found that the Defendant's motive for committing the murder under general jury's verdict, as the motive of "no less than five motives" and the jury verdict.
The defendant was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
The jury's opinion on sentencing shall be 6 years: one person, 7 years of imprisonment, 10 years of imprisonment: one person, and 15 years of imprisonment: one person.
B. 1) Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.
Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.
On the other hand, the court below's decision.