The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Prosecutor: The imprisonment with prison labor (four years) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable;

B. Defendant: The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Although the Defendant included the claim of mental disability in the first reason for appeal, the Defendant withdrawn the claim on the third date of appeal.

2. We examine both of the judgment parties’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

In the course of having a dispute with the victim, the defendant was able to prevent murder by causing a sudden and contingent crime, and after committing the crime, it brought about a result to rescue the victim to have him/her confirm the status of the victim and to preserve his/her life. After committing the crime, the fact that he/she voluntarily surrendered about about 4 hours and 30 minutes after committing the crime is nothing more than the benefit of the defendant.

However, if a person's life is lost, it shall not be infringed upon at all times, and the state and society shall also protect it as the highest value. As such, in order to keep the value of it socially, it is necessary to take more strict and strict responsibility for the crime of murder that infringes on it in order to keep it at a boundary where it is evaluated as thunder, even if it is high in value.

The defendant's position that the defendant had committed a crime of murdering the victim's life by allowing the victim's head that is directly connected with his/her life due to his/her decline, even though he/she did not intend to do so in the absence of planned intention, and in this regard, he/she committed a crime of killing the victim's life with the victim's secret before committing the crime. The defendant's position that he/she had been faced with the victim's secret money or with severe residues before committing the crime. The defendant's act of violence against the victim, without considering the victim's violence, has been taken over as the victim's life, and even if he/she has received it continuously, the defendant's life is unfasible with such reason alone.