The remaining part of the judgment below, excluding the part of dismissal of prosecution and request for attachment order, and the judgment of the court below No. 2.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. On February 27, 2018, the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), for attempted murder and the charge of assault on the part of the person who committed the crime (hereinafter “Defendant”). A prosecutor again requested an attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the Defendant on April 13, 2018 (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Da13). On April 18, 2018, the court of the lawsuit against the Defendant case rendered a decision to consolidate the request for attachment order with the instant Defendant’s case.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor brought a prosecution against the defendant on May 29, 2018, separately from the above defendant case (the Incheon District Court 2018 High Court 3844).

A. On May 31, 2018, the court of the lawsuit stated in the claim, sentenced the first instance judgment to the effect that the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) imprisonment for three years (four years of probation), observation of protection, and taking lectures for violent treatment for forty hours; (b) the prosecution as to the continuation of the crime; and (c) the request for the attachment order of this case, were dismissed.

The only prosecutor appealed on this issue.

In the petition of appeal, the scope of appeal was entirely indicated as “wholly” (the Incheon District Court 2018 MaMa13, the case number of which is the case number of the attachment order request), and the reason for appeal submitted by the prosecutor as of June 22, 2018 is stated only in the grounds for appeal to the effect that the sentencing is unfair, and there is no particular reason for appeal regarding the dismissal of the indictment or the request for the attachment order.

On July 17, 2018, at the first trial date of this court, the prosecutor appealed only for the reason of sentencing unfair, and stated to the effect that each time of the request for attachment order and the dismissal of the prosecution are not appealed.

On the other hand, on October 16, 2018, at the third trial date of this court, the prosecutor expressed his opinion to the effect that the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years and 15 years and special matters to be observed (the prohibition of access to the victim).

(d)

B. On the other hand, the defendant case as stated in the port.