A. The Defendant and the Appellant for Medical Treatment and Custody (the Defendant’s case part, hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) suffered from an editing type illness at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant suffered from mental illness at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of mental disorder.

(2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a 13-year imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence of imprisonment (13 years of imprisonment, confiscation) against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Part of the defendant's case

A. According to the record as to the defendant's claim of mental disability, the judgment of the court below has already accepted the defendant's claim of mental disability and accepted the defendant's claim of mental disability, so the court below rejected the defendant's claim of mental disability, and there is no reason to believe

B. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was crypted, resulting in the victims' death in knife with knife, or resulting in injury. Even if considering the Defendant’s suffering from e-mail, a serious consequence occurred that would result in the Defendant’s loss of an e-mailed life that could not be altered, and the Defendant J suffered an injury requiring treatment for about four weeks. In light of the fact that any person’s life suffers from an absolute and dignity that cannot be disposed of without permission, and that the act of infringing upon it cannot be used, the Defendant’s liability is heavy. Therefore, the Defendant’s criminal liability is deemed to be excessive, so there is a need for punishment corresponding to the Defendant, the victims are aware of the victims, and the Defendant’s knife with the Defendant’s knife, and the Defendant’s knife, did not reach an agreement on the victim F’s bereaved family members and the victims.

However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the mistake is divided.