The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who lost his mental or physical disability or had a frequent drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, did not recognize that the lower court did not recognize that the Defendant had lost his mental or physical disability or had a frequent mental or physical weakness.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s claim for mental or physical loss or mental weakness, the Defendant’s family stated to the effect that “the Defendant was able to support and nurse the victim of the instant case by making it difficult to support and nurse the victim, and was incomparably unstable, and the Defendant did not properly locked (Evidence Records 91, 92, 135 pages). In addition, at the time of the investigation of the Defendant’s request for an order for observation of the protection and observation against the Defendant, the result of the prior examination of the Defendant’s use of alcohol disorder was 23, and there was an opinion that “the Defendant is considered to be a person under the influence of alcohol, and to be in need of continuous observation.” Meanwhile, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in the state of 2 fluencous me at the time of the instant crime (the trial record 99 pages).

However, in light of the following circumstances as to the background and method of the instant crime, the details of the instant crime, the Defendant’s conduct before and after the instant crime, etc., which can be acknowledged by the evidence admitted by the lower court, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to lack of chronic waters and frequent drinking at the time of the instant crime, or had the weak ability to discern things

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Defendant planned and prepared the instant crime.

The Defendant stated in the police that “the Defendant had attempted to kill the victim and commit suicide from March 25, 2018” (Evidence No. 312 pages), and that “the Defendant had taken the mind of murder from five days before murder” (Evidence No. 448 pages). The Defendant stated that “The Defendant had taken the mind of murder from March 25, 201.”