The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 18 years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced to the defendant (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is determined by dividing the victim’s conversation with the victim who had a relationship with the Defendant. It is so divided that the victim’s neck was boomed and subdivided into the victim and murdered the victim. There seems to be no extenuating circumstance in light of the motive and circumstance of the crime, and the result of the crime is very serious.

The bereaved family members such as the victim's children appear to have suffered a considerable mental shock, but they did not fully recover the damage to the bereaved family members.

In 195, the defendant committed the crime of murder in this case, even though he had the record of criminal punishment, he committed the crime of murder in this case.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake and did not plan the crime in advance, seems to have reached a contingent crime by overcoming the victim's dialogue with the victim, although it did not reach the self-denunciation, it appears that he actively cooperates with the investigation agency after arresting him and actively cooperates with the investigation, and after being punished as the crime of assault, he is deemed to have lived faithfully for about 20 years other than the fine imposed once as a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and that he seems to have maintained social ties such as supporting his two daughters while living in the workplace and maintaining normal social relationship.

In full view of these circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing, the character and conduct of the defendant, the environment, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.