All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

60 days each of the days under detention before the sentence of this judgment is made to the Defendants.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: First, the Defendants were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and Defendant A was not capable of distinguishing things or making decisions due to the mental disorder of Grade A, but did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, when considering the various circumstances against the Defendants, the sentence of the judgment of the court below is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants’ level of reputation, alcohol at the time of the commission of the crime, attitude and behavior before and after the commission of the crime; (b) motive and means of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendants do not seem to have entirely or lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder or drinking at the time of the crime; and (d) thus, this part of the allegation is without merit.

B. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is contrary to the defendants, and the victim is also the defendant's wife, the defendant committed the crime of this case again after he was temporarily released from the Daejeon Juvenile Reformatory even though he had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition such as the juvenile protective disposition several times, considering all the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstance of the crime and the method of committing the crime, such as inducing the victim as an abandoned house after preparing their knife and strings, etc., and inducing the victim as an abandoned house, it is not deemed that the punishment imposed by the court below is excessive. In addition, the crime of this case constitutes a crime falling under Articles 334(2) and (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act, and there is no room for further reduction of punishment by sentencing the minimum punishment possible within the scope of the term of punishment mitigated and mitigated. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ conclusion is followed.