Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning attachment order and probation order shall be excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the part of the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of facts, etc.) although Defendant C was in a state of mental suffering from intellectual disorder at the time of the instant crime, the lower court rejected Defendant C’s assertion of mental suffering from mental suffering. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C’s defense counsel asserted to the effect that Defendant C committed the instant crime in a state that Defendant A was unable to resist due to chilling due to tangible or intangible violence during the second trial of the appeal period, the submission period for the appeal period, the defense counsel’s written opinion, and the second trial of the trial, and that the Defendant C is not responsible for committing the instant crime. However, the forced act under Article 12 of the Criminal Act refers to the act committed by coercion by another person, such as intimidation, etc. that would cause imprisonent violence, life, or body harm. In this context, the imprisonent violence means the act committed by force under Article 12 of the Criminal Act, such as imprisonment, etc.