The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the Defendant and the part of the case of the attachment order, on which only the Defendant appealed, and as such, the part of the case of the attachment order did not have any interest in appeal, the lower court excluded this part from the scope of this court’s judgment.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court (12 years of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, even though the defendant was deemed to have served alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the defendant’s usual amount of drinking, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical loss or mental weakness are without merit.

B. It is desirable to respect the case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.

The defendant shall assault the injured person.