All appeals are dismissed.

The judgment below

Part 6 Change "a sexual crime" in Part 4 to "homicide crime".

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s case in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the assertion on the mental and physical weakness of the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to

In addition, in light of the records, since the court below's decision was rendered without complying with the defendant's request for perusal of trial records, and it is not recognized that the defendant's right to defense was seriously infringed, the court below erred by infringing the defendant's right to request perusal of trial records and thereby affecting the conclusion

In addition, the court's arbitrary mitigation or exemption of punishment cannot be deemed illegal even if the court did not reduce the number of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15869, Dec. 27, 2012). In addition, since the court below's failure to reduce the number of self-denunciation cannot be deemed illegal even if it did not reduce the number of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004, etc.). The argument that the court below's failure to reduce the number of self-denunciation is erroneous, or that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the sentencing grounds of the court below's judgment

However, considering various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 17 years imprisonment with prison labor, cannot be deemed as extremely unfair, even when considering the circumstances asserted by the national defense counsel.

On the other hand, the first deliberation is conducted.