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

A. As the Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court should have rendered a judgment not guilty pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act or to have the punishment mitigated as necessary pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act. Nevertheless, the lower court did not take such measures. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the state of the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2. In so doing, the lower court’

B. Prosecutor 1) The part of the Defendant’s case (e.g., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. 2) In light of the background leading up to the instant crime and the Defendant’s character and behavior, etc., even if it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant is in danger of re-offending, the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request to attach an electronic tracking device (hereinafter “request to attach an electronic device”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of recidivism or by misapprehending the risk of recidivism, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder claim of the part 1 of the instant case, the Defendant’s drinking is recognized from the night prior to the instant crime day to June 2:30, 2013, which was the date of the instant crime.

However, at the time of the crime of this case, the time when the defendant last 3 hours has passed from the time of drinking, and the defendant is aware of the crime committed by the investigative agency.