A. Defendant 1) In spite of the fact that the Defendant was unable to discern things or make a decision due to the de facto illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court did not recognize it, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the de facto disorder, or by misunderstanding the fact, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (20 years of imprisonment) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the Prosecutor, the above sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, the following facts or circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, including the written expert opinion of U.S. with respect to the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, namely, from August 24, 2011, the Defendant was diagnosed by a mental divided disease at Busan City Hospital from around August 24, 201, prior to each of the instant crimes; the motive for the instant crime; the background and means and patterns of each of the instant crimes; the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime; the existence and degree of memory; the circumstances after the crime; investigation and trial; and the attitude in the process of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant is deemed to have failed to have the ability to make a decision beyond the ability to distinguish things or make a decision beyond the ability to distinguish things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disorder is without merit.

B. The defendant and the prosecutor respectively.