Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant case constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The sentence imposed by the court below (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by hearing the desire of the victim who is the wife in the state of drinking, and committed the crime of this case on a very contingent basis, and immediately after the crime was committed, it appears that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of this case. The crime of this case is recognized and the mistake is divided. The victim and his/her father and his/her husband and wife (the defendant's act of the defendant) appeal against the defendant. The defendant is 73 years old, and the defendant is 73 years old, and there are no other violence crimes or punishment except for suspended sentence two times due to violent crimes in the 190s.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant due to his influence and the transfer of the ownership of apartment and so on. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant murdered the victim due to his influence with the victim. In particular, even though the victim seems to have fluence, such as the victim’s brush, it seems that the Defendant continued to kill the victim by the rubber string of the pressure cycle device, and thus, the method of the crime of this case is cruel, and as long as it is impossible to alter what is, it is very important to result in the Defendant’s life.