The judgment below

Part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

With respect to the person against whom the attachment order is requested, location tracking for ten years.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, citing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the attachment order case, and the part of the probation order case.

However, since the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter "defendant") have appealed, there is no interest in appeal as to the part of the probation order case.

Therefore, this part is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case: (a) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant attempted murder, was at a state of alcohol acute addiction that shows an inappropriate aggressive behavior, instability, memory disorder, and judgment disorder; and (b) the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. (c) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (7 years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. It is unnecessary to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant, as part of the attachment order case, because the Defendant does not pose a substantial risk of recommitting murder.

3. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, it does not necessarily depend on expert's appraisal in determining whether or not the defendant's mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act exists or not, but can be independently determined by the court by taking into account the relevant materials in the record, such as the background, means, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the defendant's legal attitude.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1142, Jul. 25, 1997; 2007Do8333, 2007Do22, Nov. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides the preceding two provisions for an act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by his/her own.