Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable (15 years of imprisonment) in the light of the fact that there is no record of the crime committed by the imprisonment without prison labor or more, the self-denunciation, the fact that the defendant was voluntarily surrenders, the fact that he was not physically or mentally weak, and the defendant was planned to live together with the victim prior to

In light of the fact that the contents of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor are very significant and bad, the circumstances after the instant crime were committed, that there is no doubt for the Defendant, and that there was no agreement with the bereaved family members of the victim, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Health Team and the Defendant and the Prosecutor were already revealed and sufficiently considered during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and the lower judgment was pronounced.