A. Defendant

1) Mental disorders

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to editing and reproduction illness.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Imprisonment with prison labor declared by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's mental disability claim

In the lower court’s assertion as to this part of the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the aforementioned argument by stating in detail the decision at 4-5 pages of the judgment. In other words, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① according to the psychological review report of the Seoul District Police Agency, the Defendant evaluated that the crime was committed by a mental or physical disorder in the past during the interview as to the first criminal record, which was recognized as committing a crime by a mental or physical disorder, rather than his own intent. However, unlike the crime of this case, the Defendant stated to the effect that “it was completely different in the first case from the case where he committed the crime of this case.” (Evidence 1,093 pages of the evidence record), the Defendant did not appear to have had the ability to treat the Defendant at the time of committing the crime of this case, and the Defendant appears not to have been able to have been able to have been able to obtain any additional examination or treatment of the Defendant at the time of editing the Korean Medical Doctor at the time of May 12, 2016.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

On January 19, 193, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act that inflicted an injury on other persons with a knife at the knife district court in around 1992. On April 18, 2001, the Daegu District Court sentenced elderly victims to imprisonment with prison labor for several times in a knife and forcibly taking property of the victims, but he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years after the completion of the execution of the crime of robbery. The Defendant again committed the crime of murder in this case without prison labor for more than 4 months after the completion of the punishment for the crime of robbery. The Defendant tried to kill other persons without prison labor for his own life, and attempted to kill the other persons without prison labor for his own life, and to find out the victim's knife and to purchase the victim's knife with his own knife for fear of death.

On the other hand, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no possibility of edification for the defendant, such as: (a) even though the defendant has no mental illness, such as editing and dial illness, even if it does not reach the legal degree of mental disorder; (b) such mental illness, etc. appears to have served as one of the causes of the crime in this case; (c) the defendant has renounced the crime immediately after the crime in this case, although he had attempted to kill the victim, but he has given up her own knife, and stated to the effect that "the knife has broken down and the change in the mind has occurred" after killing the female victim; (d) the death penalty is a very cold punishment against the human life itself; and (e) the punishment is extremely exceptional punishment, which can be presented by the country’s dual judicial system; (e) the degree of responsibility for the crime in this case; (e) the punishment of death is likely to clearly be justified in light of the degree of objective motive for the crime in which it can be justified; and (e) the defendant’s ability to choose and degree of punishment after the death; (e.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (a prison labor for not less than 18 years or for not less than 18 years), it is not determined that the lower court’s punishment for life is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Lee Young-young

[Special Mitigation/Discretionary] A self-denunciation / planned murder, cruel Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes, and Specific violent Crimes (Cumulative Offense)

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 18 years or for life for more than 18 years (the crime of murder for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crime of larceny for which the sentencing guidelines are not applied are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the lower limit of the above sentence range