In light of the records, we affirm the judgment below's rejection of the defendant's argument about the mental and physical disorder, recognizing the defendant guilty of attempted murder against the victim M and K among the facts charged in this case for the reasons stated in its holding.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on mental disorder.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or violating the sentencing guidelines on the circumstances affecting the sentencing is ultimately attributable to the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance court that sentenced 23 years to the Defendant, cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair even in light of the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel.

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