The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for fifteen years.

The length of the seized knife 30cm in length, the knife 18cm in length;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions due to excessive noise.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court explained the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel in the column of “determination as to the claim of mental or physical disability by the Defendant and the defense counsel” among the judgment of the lower court, and rejected the above assertion. In line with the records, the lower court’s determination that it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing is a case involving the Defendant’s murdering the victim by a cruel method, such as taking the victim’s head on the victim’s face, knife knife, cutting the knife, blife, etc. on the victim’s face, cutting the knife, etc., and then destroying the victim’s body. The instant case is very heavy, and there is a high possibility of criticism against the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s identification and escape rather than immediately after the Defendant committed the instant crime.

It seems that the bereaved family members of the defendant suffered a considerable mental pain due to the crime of this case, and even if considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and is against the defendant, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe punishment corresponding to the responsibility for the crime.

On the other hand, however, the defendant's argument with the victim under the influence of alcohol is somewhat contingent, and there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant killed the victim as planned from the beginning.

In addition, the defendant is also the defendant.