The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the victim’s head as a pipe, or the victim’s head, which was used on the floor, continued to be a pipe.

While the Defendant was faced with the shoulder part of the victim, the Defendant got out of the pipe, and the victim obstructed it with his left arms, and sprinked the left head of the victim, and only one part of the victim’s body where the Defendant sprinked the hack pipe once due to the nature of the pipe he was placed.

There was no conclusive or dolusent intention to kill the victim against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the basis of the testimony of F, G, and the lower court.

B. The Defendant’s instant crime of unfair sentencing constitutes the crime of murdering at least two types (ordinary motive murder) and the special mitigation of “influent murder” and “influence of victims,” and the scope of recommending punishment is “7 to 12 years,” which is the area subject to mitigation, and where only two special mitigations exist, the lower limit of sentencing range recommended in the sentencing guidelines should be mitigated by up to 1/2. As such, the scope of recommending punishment is “3 years and 6 months to 12 years.”

The instant crime does not constitute “cruel criminal acts” as a special inmate.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that only the Defendant was under special circumstances under the Act on the Punishment of Crut Crimes, and sentenced the Defendant to a more severe punishment (17 years of imprisonment) by mismisunderstanding that the scope of the recommended punishment is more than 15 years, which is an aggravated area, and that the Defendant was guilty.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the judgment of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court.