살인미수등
1. The part of the judgment below regarding the defendant's case shall be reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years;
3. A seizure.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the preparation of murder (1) of the Defendant’s case, the Defendant did not prepare or plan the crime for the purpose of murdering B, while having found B to have the victim B fright at the time of the crime of this part.
Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a preparatory act for the purpose of murdering B, for the preparation of murder, and for the realization of murder.
(2) As to the attempted murder, the Defendant was aware of the whereabouts of the victim H at the time of committing this part of the crime, but did not have the intent to kill H solely on the ground that the Defendant did not have been aware of the whereabouts of the victim H in the instant crime.
B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The lower court’s ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not pose a risk of recidivism in the part of the case claiming an attachment order.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court in the part of the Defendant’s case is too unfilled and unreasonable. 2) The part of the lower court’s claim for attachment order is unreasonable as the location tracking device attachment order issued by the Defendant is too short of the attachment period (10 years).
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and on this basis, based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court is difficult to view that the Defendant did not simply have engaged in the Defendant, at the time of committing this part of the crime, at the time of committing the crime, for the purpose of receiving a death sentence B, and that the Defendant actually contributed to the realization of the crime of murder by objectively viewing that the Defendant prepared deadly weapons for the purpose of murder