살인예비등
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) had a knife and knife at the time of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal doctrine (related to the preparation of murder). However, considering the fact that the Defendant, who takes advantage of the knife and knife, had a normal fishing, was a thing that the Defendant kept on the vehicle, and that the Defendant is punished for suicide even before the month of the instant case, it is nothing more than threatening the victims or prepares for the Defendant to commit suicide. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit murder and to prepare for murder.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in preparation for murder of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.
In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, confiscation, and 80 hours of violent therapy program) is too unreasonable.
In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even though the defendant has a risk of recommitting the murder crime.
Judgment
As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the part of the instant case (related to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued to the same effect as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances, ① the Defendant from October 201