In addition, both appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not intend to kill the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of murder of this case.

B) When Samsung galloning, the Defendant received a donation from the victim D with one stamp and three cellular phones.

In addition, the victim was provided with the victim's vehicle, its key, bank, and cellular phone as security while lending 5 million won to the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which found the Defendant guilty of the thief of the instant larceny charges.

C) The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (20 years of imprisonment, 20 years of exchange) is excessively unreasonable.

2) The part for which the application for attachment order was filed (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) did not have the Defendant’s intent to murder, nor did the Defendant have the risk of recidivism.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the risk of re-offending or by misunderstanding the fact that the court below erred in ordering the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years or to impose an obligation.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing that the lower court committed against the Defendant is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. 1) On the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not have the intention of murder, merely because it was merely a fact that the Defendant got out of the victim’s interest to escape from the victim’s shouldered at the time of the instant case by the victim’s demand.

In light of the following circumstances, we examine the evidence duly admitted by the court below, and examine the defendant in light of the following circumstances.