Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (eight years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment appears to have led to the crime of this case under the circumstances where the defendant was somewhat predicted of drinking, that the defendant has no criminal records except for the punishment imposed by several times, that the defendant escaped immediately after the crime, but immediately after the crime was committed, the defendant voluntarily surrendered to the investigative agency, and that the defendant agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim, that the mother of the victim wanted to take the action against the defendant again in this court, and that the defendant reflects his fault in his favor of the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is very heavy in that the defendant murdered the victim's left chest with a knife prepared in advance, because the victim's knife has knifeed the victim's knife, and the result of the crime is very serious and that the method of crime is planned and cruel.

In the state of the victim, the victim did not keep the knife in the knife knife on the knife of the defendant, and flife the defendant under extreme pain.

The murder crime cannot be used for any reason, which results in deducting the life of the person who is the most valuable value that cannot be altered.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime.