The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case;

A. In light of the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives of human life and is extremely exceptional punishment that can be presented by the judicial system, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only when there are special circumstances that anyone can be deemed justifiable in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of the punishment.

Therefore, in determining whether to sentence a death penalty, the court shall thoroughly examine all the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the offender's age, occupation and career, character and conduct, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of a previous offense, motive for the crime, existence of a prior plan, the degree of preparation, means and method, remaining and malicious degree, seriousness of the result, number of victims and appraisal of damage, the depth and attitude of the result, reflectivity and attitude after the crime, the degree of damage recovery, fear of recidivism, etc., with the focus on the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and only if it is proved through such deliberation that there are circumstances justifying the sentence of the death penalty, the death penalty may be imposed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do354, Mar. 24, 2006; 2010Do4347, Jun. 10, 2010). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter "defendants") were Mutined by their parents and sent young children and young children in a usual manner without any particular flight. Before the instant case occurred, the military court has no special criminal record except for those subject to a suspended sentence of two years in the military due to harsh treatment against the latter in military service, etc., and the defendant was enrolled in the university on March 2009 and has been living in a usual life without any difference with other college students in the surrounding area, and the defendant's parent stated that it would be against the time and mistake of the crime after the instant crime.