2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the unfavorable circumstances; (b) the instant crime was committed under the circumstance that the Defendant had been punished several times by violence; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without any agreement by the police officers and the body of the police officers, taking into account the following: (d) the Defendant’s act of committing the instant crime under the circumstance that: (a) the Defendant was put to a life-and-life disease containing gasoline in the process of punishing the Defendant who was prepared in advance; (b) the police officers left the police officers with his report without any justifiable reason; (c) the police officers sent to his report interfere with the performance of their duties; and (d) the police officers interfere with the performance of their duties; (d) the occurrence of multiple harm to human life and property; (e) the Defendant had been punished several times by imprisonment with prison labor; and (e) the Defendant did not commit the instant crime under the condition that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and/she did not reach an agreement on special intimidation against C, and (e) the Defendant’s motive and condition that he did not have been subject to criminal punishment for more than two years.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully considering the above various circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in this court are considered.