살인미수
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
With respect to the person against whom the attachment order is requested, it shall be for ten years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) were under the influence of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant was in the state of mental and physical disability or mental defect under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order against the Defendant, but the Defendant’s risk of repeating the offense is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the records of the judgment on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, the Defendant was found to have provided a little drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, but in light of the motive and background of the crime in this case, the process of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after committing the crime, the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.
not be deemed to have been in a state of loss of such ability.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
B. The lower court’s determination on the part of the Prosecutor’s Claim for Attachment Orders 1) The lower court: (a) there was no history that the Defendant had been punished for a crime of violence, and there was no record of investigation and punishment since 2006; (b) the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner; (c) the employees of the convenience store known to the Defendant to the degree of two months have positive assessment of the Defendant’s ordinary character and behavior; (d) the Defendant’s mental disorder selection scheme (PC-R); and (d) the risk assessment scheme (KOAS - G) cannot be deemed to have high risk of recidivism as the result of the Defendant’s combination of the following: (a) the Defendant was living without any special issue at the time of being placed on probation from 2005 to 2007; and (b) the Defendant was recommended by her mother in 2009 and 2011.