Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

The Defendant with mental disorder in the part of the Defendant’s case with the summary of the grounds for appeal was diagnosed before the instant crime was committed and was treated at a hospital. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by administering three strokes or medication.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence (18 years of imprisonment) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the court below ordering the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a location of ten years.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder on the part of the instant case, the lower court argued to the same effect as alleged in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the record, held the Defendant’s medical history of depression and loyalty from around the first half of 200 to the same effect

The defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that it is not deemed that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime in light of the mental sentiment of the preparation of a custody center for the treatment and custody of public officials, the method of committing the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below after comparing it with the records, it is just to acknowledge and determine the above facts, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts concerning mental disorder or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing mental disorder is without merit.

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, it appears that the Defendant himself/herself appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent manner, instead of having planned it, and that the Defendant directly committed the instant crime after the occurrence of the instant case.