Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for an attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to whom the Defendant and the person subject to the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) suffered from a usual depression are committing the instant crime under the influence of alcohol or water exemption.

B. The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (10 years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable for the defendant, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too unfluent and unfair for the defendant. On the contrary, the prosecutor asserts that it is unfair because it is too unfluent.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. According to the records of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the defendant suffered from a usual depression at the time of the crime of this case and was aware that he had drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's usual dose, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, in particular, the defendant correctly memorys the crime, the defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression or alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is without merit.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the conditions of sentencing are not changed compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and that the sentence of the first instance is within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the first instance court.

The crime of this case brought about a serious result of infringing the life of the victim, and even if it did not receive a letter from the bereaved family members of the victim, the victim with a knife knife is under the influence of alcohol, etc.