In addition, all appeals filed by persons subject to attachment order and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The part of the case by the defendant (unfair sentencing) refers to the defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), and the defendants are individually named, and the "the defendant" is written in front of their names.

With respect to the sentence sentenced to B (Defendant A and B: 20 years of imprisonment, Defendant C: 15 years of imprisonment), the Defendants asserted that the sentence is too unaffortable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unaffortable and unfair.

B. The part regarding the request for attachment order of an electronic device (unfair rejection of the request for attachment order of an electronic device) the prosecutor: (a) the Defendants attempted to kill the victim several times in advance by planning the insurance money in advance; (b) the Defendants committed the instant crime; and (c) the Defendants are highly likely to repeat the crime of murder.

However, the court below asserts that it is unfair to dismiss the prosecutor's request for attachment order of electronic device.

2. Determination

A. Examining the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendants and the Prosecutor (the part of the case), the sentencing conditions in this case are as follows: (a) the Defendants appeared to reflect their mistakes while intending to commit the crime in this case; (b) Defendant B frequently drinks usual drinking; and (c) the victim committed the crime in this case to escape from this by using verbal abuse and violence against those who have intellectual disorder upon the withdrawal of alcohol; (d) Defendant C did not directly participate in the crime of murder; (e) Defendant C did not have any criminal record; (e) Defendant B and C did not have any criminal record; and (e) Defendant A violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which the crime in this case and judgment have become final and conclusive in relation to concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act; and (e) there is a need to consider equity with the case to be judged simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act; and (e) Defendant B has any obstacle to fostering them.