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

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s crime in the part of the instant case requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter the Defendant) were in conflict with the victim and murdered by the victim several times in excess of the victim and the nature of the crime is not very good; and (b) the Defendant did not agree with the victim’s bereaved family members up to the trial of the party; and (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) there is no criminal conviction of the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment for the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex and environment; (d) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) various conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate; (b) it is too heavy or unbrupted that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is unreasonable; and (c) thus

B. The part of the case pertaining to the attachment order is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Attachment of Electronic Devices (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”). However, as long as the prosecutor filed an appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order, the prosecutor did not submit a legitimate ground for appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order, and the petition of appeal submitted by the prosecutor does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal regarding this part and the record is not examined.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Electronic Devices Installation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.