beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (seven years of imprisonment, confiscation) against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the sentencing was committed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) 1 - The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant 1 - The sentence of the lower court against the wrongful Defendant is too uncomfortable.
2) Although the part of the request for attachment order is likely to repeat murder crimes, it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss all of the request for attachment order of an electronic device for location tracking and for preliminary protective observation order.
2. Determination
A. The part of the case against Defendant - There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the unfair claim for sentencing, and in the event the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is likely to kill the victim’s chest with the kitchen knife by murdering the victim’s chest on one occasion in the course of asking the victim about the useful use of the construction cost prior to the several years, and is likely to kill the victim’s chest, the attack part is fatal, and the result of death is heavy.
In the death of the victim, the bereaved family seems to have suffered a considerable mental shock and suffering.
The defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim's bereaved family.
On the other hand, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant seriously commits the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant talked with the victim as a monetary problem, the fact that the defendant seems to have led to the crime of this case by dolusence, the fact that the defendant was the first offender who has no criminal history, the fact that the defendant had a close relation with his family and society, and the fact that the defendant made efforts to recover damage, such as the defendant's burden of funeral expenses, etc.
. The above.