The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a.e., five and half years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unfluent and unfair.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device even if the requester for the attachment order, who requested the attachment order, had a risk of repeating murder again, is improper.

2. Determination

A. Considering the unique area regarding the sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of court priority and the principle of direct determination under the Criminal Procedure Act for determining the unfair argument of sentencing, and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the determination of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions on the sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing examination; and (b) the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes is committed by the Defendant while under the influence of alcohol by assaulting his mother and her mother, and then is committed to attempted to kill the victim who is prone in the street, and by actively deceiving the damaged company without intention or ability to refrain from doing so, by actively deceiving the damaged company to take money in the name of the fund to purchase used cars, and thus, the nature of the crime and the criminal fact are inferior. The Defendant’s attack suffered injury that requires treatment for about four weeks at the left knbbbbbs, etc. due to the Defendant’s attack, and up to now, the Defendant did not receive any injury from the victim L, and the Defendant did not even compensate the victim of the fraud.