The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (11 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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). The Defendant asserted circumstances concerning the sentencing asserted in the trial at the lower court level, and the lower court is deemed to have already determined a sentence by fully considering such circumstances.

The Defendant murdered cruelly by making the head part of the victim C (66 cm) on several occasions in a person who was divingd without resistance with 5.6km up to 5.6kg of weight. In light of the specific content, method and result of the crime, etc., the Defendant requires strict criminal punishment equivalent to the degree of responsibility.

At the time of the defendant, the victim was in a extreme state of decentralization with the idea that he would have abandoned himself at the time and to the female.

one is that such points may constitute a ground to justify the Defendant’s murder action.