The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of various circumstances, such as the background and method of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., revealed by the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the Defendant was physically and mentally in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes.

As it is difficult to see it, the ground of appeal disputing this cannot be accepted.

In addition, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself, the number of self-denunciation under Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Code is merely a reason for voluntary mitigation of punishment, it cannot be said that the court below's failure to reduce the number of self-denunciation is illegal.

Meanwhile, the lower judgment’s assertion that the lower court erred by hearing the grounds for sentencing and by mistake of facts constitutes an unfair judgment.

However, examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, there are substantial grounds for recognizing that the determination of the lower court’s imprisonment with labor for more than ten years is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the national defense counsel.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.