All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (12 years of imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing is so excessive that it is unfair (defendants). On the contrary, the above sentencing is so unfair that it is too uneasible and unfair ( prosecutor). 2. Determination on the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

Although the defendant was physically and mentally weak due to the accident, he killed the victim F (the 55 years old) of the victim F (the 55 years old) with a deadly weapon in the absence of any other motive. In light of the specific contents, methods, results, etc. of the crime, a strict criminal punishment corresponding to the degree of responsibility is required against the defendant.

According to this, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.