The request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

2...

A. (1) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have the intention of murder.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to murder or intentional murder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing (A) the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. (1) The lower court ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, despite the fact that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had a risk of repeating murder.

(2) If the prosecutor filed an appeal against the accused case, it is deemed that the prosecutor filed an appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, the prosecutor’s petition of appeal or statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor does not contain any statement of grounds of appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the intent of murder in the relevant legal doctrine does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to his own act.

The recognition or predictability is not only conclusive but also uncertain, so-called willful negligence is recognized.

The defendant did not have the intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, and only has the intention to injure or assault.