All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence (Defendant A: 15 years of imprisonment, Defendant B: 18 years of imprisonment, etc.) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

A et al.

subsection (1) is referred only to as “defendants.”

As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and made a reply to the mistake in depth while meeting, and the Defendant appears to have been involved in the instant crime under the state of mental disorder caused by intellectual disability, which was offered by a person who promised to marry, for whom the Defendant took part in the instant crime. The fact that there is no history of criminal punishment against the Defendant, and that the Defendant appears to have led the instant crime or failed to share the burden of direct murder, is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant in collusion with male-friendly job offers B, and the defendant murdered the victim who is his father, which is a highly valuable value that cannot be altered, as well as the life of father who created himself, which is very heavy liability for the crime. The fact that the defendant planned the crime in advance with B to commit the crime in advance, and moved to the execution after having been planning the crime to contact B after the victim was under the influence of alcohol.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission (15 years of imprisonment), it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

Defendant

B Not more than B.

The term “defendants” in this subsection is only called “defendants.”