2. The Defendant’s confession of the instant crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant made a severe rash discriminatory desire for the victim, based on the distorted perspective of other races, publicly revealing false facts about the victim, and the fact that the victim was suffering from severe mental pain due to the above act of the Defendant appears to have been suffering, and that the Defendant had been subjected to a suspended sentence once for the crime of double race and three times for fines, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.