Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserted misconception of facts and violation of law regarding mental and physical disability at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things and make decisions due to various mental symptoms, such as emotional disorder, climate disorder, impulse adjustment disorder, uneasiness, coercion disorder, coercion disorder, coercion disorder, excessive behavioral disorder (ADD), etc., and side effects of the merlnet caps, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below did not recognize mental illness of the defendant, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts and violation of law which affected the judgment.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (25 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable. 2) The Defendant in the case of requesting an attachment order appears to have been sufficiently educated through the execution of long-term imprisonment, and actively expressed his intent to receive mental and medical treatment, and the crime of murder is first committed once. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there exists a risk of recommitting the murder crime.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years and to impose an obligation.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to mental and physical disability and violation of law, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have any or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Around February 2009, the Defendant was diagnosed as a fluoral disorder and a fluoral disorder, and even thereafter, was determined by the fluoral disorder or a fluoral disorder.