In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Prosecutor 1) Even though the Defendant had a normal accident ability, it is unreasonable for the lower court to recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical disability and reduce the punishment on this ground. 2) The lower court’s sentencing of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible.

3. It is improper for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order even if the defendant's improper rejection of the request for attachment order recognizes the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion related to mental disability, namely, ① the defendant was registered as a disabled person with intellectual disability on January 9, 2009, and was judged to have a serious degree of disability at that time; ② the mental evaluation conducted by the court below was diagnosed to the degree of 35 to 50 years old with intelligence index, and the mental age was diagnosed to the degree of 4 to 8 years old; ③ the defendant was judged to have been in a state of mental disability due to intellectual disability even at the time of the crime of this case; ③ other circumstances such as the background of the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. were comprehensively taken into account, it is determined that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above intellectual disability at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's mental health and the legal mitigation for this reason is justified.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing where there is no change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.