2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case is nothing more than that of the Defendant’s attempted to murder the victim’s knife in the hospital with knife, and thus, may cause serious danger to the victim’s life.

The victim seems to have suffered great shock and pain due to the above crime by the defendant.

Furthermore, the Defendant committed the instant crime while wearing an electronic tracking device during the repeated crime period.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime, and runs deeply against his mistake.

The defendant is a person with visual disability of the sixth degree and suffers from intellectual disability that is accompanied by a sacratic brain cerebriformiform and behavioral disorder.

The Defendant sent a fluorous growth period due to the divorce, the dissolution of home, etc. of his parents.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records, including the following circumstances, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (from April to August 10), as compared to the first instance court, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, it does not seem unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. With respect to the part of the request for attachment order, the prosecutor also states that the scope of the appeal is “wholly” in the petition of appeal and that the request for attachment order is filed.