The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance (four years of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable;

2. The crime of this case against the victim living together by the defendant is a case resulting in the death of the victim with a knife knife, which is a dangerous object in spite of the fact that the victim did not actually pose a threat to the defendant, and the crime of this case is not good in light of the method and content of the crime, the degree of damage, etc., and the mental shock that the bereaved family members would suffer due to the death of the victim is serious, but not receiving a written application from the bereaved family members so far, constitutes a reason for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the first instance court caused the Defendant to commit the instant crime by contingently, and the fact that the Defendant voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily surrenders to the police after reporting the instant crime to the police, various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the first instance court in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, the first instance court determined that the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court falls under the category 3 of general injury (where the result of death occurs) among the sentencing guidelines set forth in violent crimes, the scope of the recommended sentence is two to four years.

Since the defendant inflicts a bodily injury on the victim in a knife that is a deadly weapon, it is reasonable to view that the scope of the sentence of recommendation is 4 to 7 years by imprisonment for the reason that it falls under the aggravated area of types 3 (where a death result occurs) of general bodily injury (where a person commits a crime with a deadly weapon (where a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon, or

In light of all the sentencing materials in the records of this case, the sentence imposed on the defendant by the first instance court is relatively minor among the sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines recommended by the sentencing guidelines.