Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to a punishment for robbery in the past, committed the crime of attempted murder of this case even though he/she had been sentenced to an injury by robbery in the past, and that the Defendant was assessed as “high” as a result of evaluation of the Defendant’s risk of recidivism, it is necessary to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant.

2. Determination as to the unjust argument of sentencing by both parties (the part of the case of the defendant), the crime of this case was committed by the defendant with a different victim.

In full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the sentencing conditions specified in records and pleadings, such as the fact that the crime was committed in attempted murder of the victim, and the fact that the victim was committed with considerable physical and mental impulses to the defendant in this case, and that all of each of the crimes in this case was led to the court of this case, and that the victim was made confessions and reflects all of the crimes in this case, and that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant, the punishment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair are rejected.

3. The prosecutor’s assertion on the prosecutor’s claim regarding the request for attachment order is as follows: (a) motive and background leading up to the crime of attempted murder of this case; and (b) the Defendant’s evaluation of the risk of recidivism; (c) the risk of recidivism was assessed as “high,” but the specific evaluation score constitutes an interim level and the boundary line of “high level

Considering the age, character, conduct, etc. of the defendant, the circumstance asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal that the defendant pose a risk of committing murder again.

It is difficult for the court below to conclude.