In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. As to the murder by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1), if the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are appointed as senior officer of the government office in the future, the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) would bring the Defendant into the crime of murder of this case by means of causing harm to the Defendant and taking a specific female as a hostage, etc., and thus, constitutes a legitimate defense.

B) As to the special injury, the victim F was later the victim C at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not display a knife on the victim F at the time, and the victim F incurred a knife in the process of the Defendant’s knife, and the Defendant did not intentionally inflict an injury on the victim F.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (20 years of imprisonment, confiscation, 10 years of attachment order of electronic device tracking devices, and imposition of compliance) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the Defendant’s facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim C, the Defendant’s mental illness history, the details and circumstances at the time of murder, etc., which were duly admitted and duly examined, the lower court, based on the following factors: (a) there was a substantial reason for the Defendant to have at the time of the instant case, or for the Defendant

Therefore, the defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that the defendant's crime of this case cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and acceptable.