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

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case) The Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. 2) The Defendant was in an unreasonable sentencing sentence (a two-year imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The part for which the request for attachment order is made by the Defendant is deemed to be unfair because the location tracking device attachment period (10 years) ordered by the lower court is too short and unfair, and the prosecutor is deemed to be too short and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the part 1 of the Defendant’s case is deemed to have been in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. The Defendant’s crime of this case is deemed to be in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the background and method leading up to the instant crime, and the situation after the instant crime, etc., which led to the Defendant’s occurrence of the instant crime. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant committed the instant crime of this case with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendant and the prosecutor, without any obvious motive with the victim who was sexually ill, without any awareness as the other party to the purchase of sex, and committed the murder of the victim, and then, it constitutes a theft of money by the victim, which is extremely poor, and thus, constitutes an infringement of mental dignity of the victim.