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

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not intend to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, and did not have a conclusive intent to murder the victim.

B) Even if the Defendant’s intent of murder is recognized, the Defendant had already ceased to commit the instant crime before the Defendant’s mother went to the alleyway prior to the house, which is the instant crime scene, and opened a locked gate in the process of the Defendant’s mother’s coming out of the house and allowed the Defendant’s mother’s mother to report it to 119. Thus, the instant crime constitutes an attempted crime.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to acknowledge the cause of the request for attachment order and order the Defendant to attach a location tracking device for a period of 10 years, even though the Defendant did not pose a risk of recommitting murder.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, 1) as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no conclusive intention to kill the victim, the Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, with detailed explanation on the determination thereof.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court and the first instance court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s finding and determination of the same fact is justifiable, and there is a violation of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as the grounds for

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion that the instant crime was attempted to be suspended, the Defendant suspended the Defendant’s murder by her own consent or caused the result thereof.