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. Considering that the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendants”) violate their errors and surrenders themselves after the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable (four years of imprisonment).
B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the Defendant’s conduct seen before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the instant crime. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the instant crime. 2) In view of the fact that the instant crime of unfair sentencing resulted in the serious consequence of the death of the victim, and that the Defendant did not agree with the bereaved family members of the victim,
3. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was subject to punishment as an act of violence since around 1997; (b) the Defendant’s awareness of compliance with the legal order was weak and continuous; and (c) the Defendant’s general risk of recidivism was assessed at a higher level; and (d) such general risk of recidivism should be deemed as including the risk of recidivism against murder; and (b) the lower court’s dismissal of the request for the attachment order of this case is unreasonable.
2. Part of the defendant's case
A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the prosecutor’s unfair argument to mitigate the mental disorder, namely, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Yangsan Hospital for 378 days from September 14, 2012 to September 26, 2013 due to a franchisy disorder, etc., and continued to be hospitalized in the Yangsan Hospital during the period of 378 days from January 21, 2014 to April 14, 2014, and the Defendant was treated as a mentally disabled person of Grade 81 in intelligence index.