Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the case of the defendant (e.g., imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable to order a defendant who has no risk of recommitting a crime of murdering part of an attachment order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, based on the following, sentenced the Defendant to a 17-year imprisonment with prison labor, taking into account the motive of committing the instant crime, the Defendant’s age and happiness environment, and the circumstances after the instant crime, including the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime by murdering the victim and destroying the body of the victim under the cruel Criminal Procedure Act; (b) the victim’s children were suffering from extreme mental impulse and pain; and (c) the Defendant’s child was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for

As decided by the court below, the defendant 34 years of life together with his spouse was killed as a cruel method, as well as the victim's knife with an industrial knife and damaged the body, so criminal liability should be imposed accordingly.

In addition, there was no change in circumstances that could be considered in the circumstances in the trial.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the sentence of the court below, which is determined in consideration of the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (the recommendation type is 15 or more years of imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment for life) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court determined on the part of the attachment order of this case as to the method and content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s violent behavior and distorted tendency that can be seen through the instant crime, and the Defendant’s risk assessment level of re-offending (KORAS-G), although the risk of re-offending was at the intermediate level (10 points), the following factors are important factors: (a) the assessment of the method and content of the instant crime; (b) the risk of re-offending (10 points in total); (c) the assessment of the method and content of selecting the mentally ill persons (PC-R); and (d) the risk factor such as “satisfy in