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: (a) at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, which was under the influence of alcohol.

(2) The punishment of the lower court (the order to attach an electronic tracking device for five years in which the disclosure and notification of personal information between two years and six months, and four years, and the matters to be observed, are imposed) is too unreasonable.

(3) In light of all the circumstances, the location tracking device attachment order for an electronic device and matters to be observed by the person who requests the attachment order shall not be necessary to impose the order and the risk of recidivism.

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

2. In light of the Defendant’s main volume, details of the crime, means and methods of the crime, the circumstances, etc. indicated in the judgment and the record, the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to move things due to drinking, display them, or make decisions.

The decision is judged.

In full view of the matters on the conditions of the sentencing and the sentencing guidelines expressed in the course of the sentencing hearing of the court below, the judgment of the court below that deemed the nature of the crime of this case, the victim's suffering and impulse, the defendant's reflective power, etc. as the main sentencing factor has exceeded the reasonable limit of the discretion.

It can not be assessed, and there is no circumstance or material that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the course of the deliberation of the sentencing of the party.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court accepted the request for an attachment order for five years as well as the request for an attachment order against the person who requested the attachment order, and imposed matters to be observed. In light of relevant evidence, pleading, legal doctrine, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and did not find any error such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, etc.

3. According to the conclusion, all appeals filed by the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed (Article 364(4) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act).