All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A person who requests an attachment order shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

evidence of seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are led to confession and reflect; and (b) contingently committed murder during the instant crime; and (c) the victim’s bereaved family members and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “victim”), the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable (18 years of imprisonment).

B. A prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that the Defendant planned to murder the victim, the method of the instant crime is harsh, and the Defendant’s attitude after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The risk of recidivism is extremely high according to the circumstances such as the dismissal of the request for attachment order, and the evaluation of the selection of the mental disorder (PCL-R) against the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court’s dismissal of the request for attachment order of this case is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine.

2. Ex officio determination - The prosecutor shall examine the previous facts charged (homicide and concealment of property) ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for the amendment of the indictment, and the prosecutor shall make the previous facts charged in the trial at the trial of the party, and add the primary facts charged as stated in the following behind the change of “homicide” and “recovering” into “thief,” and add “the main sentence of Article 338 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” to “the main sentence of Article 338 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” as the main applicable provisions of the indictment. The prosecutor did not apply for the amendment of the indictment to change the main facts charged as robbery, but did not apply for the permission to change them

and this Court has permitted this.

3. As seen earlier, the lower court’s determination on the grounds of ex officio reversal due to changes in the indictment at the trial, and thus, on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the prosecutor’s rejection of the request for attachment order.