In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. Part 1 of the Defendant’s case: (i) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles; (ii) the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any intention to commit murder or to prepare murder; and (iii) there was no real preparation for the realization of murder; and therefore, (iv) there was no real preparation for the crime of murder. Therefore, the crime

In other words, the defendant's writing his behavior rules in the pocket book was merely for the purpose of simply removing his stress or obtaining self-defensive proposals, and the purpose of purchasing deadly weapons was to protect himself due to the fact that the defendant was suffering from a yellow disorder at the time.

In addition, there is no specific plan to kill H. And there is no fact that the defendant plans to kill H.

B) In light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “In the event of intimidation the victim’s house, it would have caused the victim’s living expenses.” However, the Defendant did not have any statement as above at the time of investigation by the prosecution, the Defendant did not have any fact demanding the victim to visit or money, and the Defendant already had cash equivalent to KRW 300,000 at the time of committing the robbery of this case, the Defendant had no intention to commit robbery at the time of committing the robbery of this case, and there was no commencement of the commission of robbery, and thus, there was no intention to commit robbery. 2) At the time of committing the robbery of this case, at the time of committing the robbery of this case, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness and drinking.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a life imprisonment and confiscation thereof are too unreasonable).

B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant who does not pose a risk of recidivism for 30 years is unreasonable.

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

(a) mistake of facts;