beta
Text
Defendant
The appeal of the candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendants”) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of this case in the part of the defendant's case is a crime committed by the defendant who suffered from ordinary Cho Jae-gu's disease while the defendant lacks the ability or decision-making capacity to discern things due to it, the defendant is the first offender with no criminal power, and the defendant directly contacted with an investigative agency after the crime, which is favorable sentencing data for the defendant.
However, the crime of this case is a case of killing a victim who is one's own father, and the murder of a lineal ascendant is an anti-social and fatal crime that cannot be used or used for any reason in that it is a crime that causes the death of a parent who is one's own father and takes the life of a child, in addition to infringing on the life of a person who is a valuable value that cannot be altered.
In addition, the Defendant murdered with knife knife over 61 times by leaving the body of the victim, such as the clothes and knife of the victim, and the Defendant, after committing the above murder, had still been living and has shown a shower situation on the ground that he was faced with the victim who was suffering from the pain and was faced with the body of the victim.
In addition, the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the sentencing guidelines applicable to this case, which are applicable to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, are five to eight years, such as the time of original adjudication.
If the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).