The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant intended to dispose of the land inherited by the victim in order to resolve the situation where the victim’s retirement becomes more difficult due to the bank’s occurrence, etc., but the victim’s punishment is likely to face and the affected victim’s punishment was unable to oppose the above, which led to a conflict between the victim and his/her punishment. As a result, he/she returned home without drinking on the day of the crime, resulting in an explosion of the complaint he/she raised against the victim and resulting in the instant crime, which led to the occurrence of 119 of the victim’s punishment, and requested the victim to give him/her no more than 119 by blooding the victim’s wife immediately after the crime was committed.

In other words, it seems that the police was out of the body of the person who committed the crime at the time of being dispatched to the scene of the crime, and thus, the willful negligence of murder seems to have never existed the conclusive intention of murder even if it was committed, and in the future, it seems that the her husband was killed, and there is no past record of criminal punishment, and that her life is living through her life under his own responsibility, the confession of the crime of this case, the confession of the crime of this case, the her husband with disability and the 22-year marriage with the her husband was born, and the her child was born for 16 years, and the her child was born, and the her child was born with the her mother for 16 years, and the her child was born, and the her child needs to be supported by the her mother, and the her child was able to be supported by the defendant's wife and the her wife.

However, the defendant's husband is also his husband with hearing disability.