In addition, the appeal filed by the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order shall be dismissed.

Therefore, there is no benefit to appeal regarding the part of the judgment below's request for probation order, and therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's case, medical treatment and custody request and attachment

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (such as imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years, medical treatment and custody, and attachment of an electronic tracking device for 15 years, etc.) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined on the part of the medical treatment and custody claim claim as follows: (a) based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, determined that the Defendant was also likely to repeat a crime if he/she needs to receive medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility and does not

Examining the circumstances revealed by the lower court in comparison with records, the lower court’s determination is reasonable.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B. The lower court determined that the attachment of an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed should be imposed for 15 years, on the grounds that the Defendant is likely to recommit murder in view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the record, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

It is difficult to accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion.

C. The relevant legal principles on the allegation of unfair sentencing on the part of the defendant's case are unreasonable.