The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than seven years and six months.

2.2.2.20 per cent of the amount seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant case: In the statement of grounds for appeal of defectiveness and unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant alleged misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of appeal; however, on the first day of the trial of the first instance, the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

A) The Defendant, who suffered from brain damage, or was under the influence of alcohol, indicated on the column of “mental disorder” in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the Defendant, and clearly arranged the position that the Defendant asserted only mental disorder on the date of the first trial of the court of first instance. While having committed the instant crime, most of the instant crimes were not memory. (ii) The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court imposing an attachment order is unreasonable, since it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is highly likely to recommit a murder crime.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor with regard to the part of the defendant's case filed an application for changes in the indictment with regard to "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.)" as "special intimidation" among the names of the defendants against the defendant on the first trial date, and "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 1, and 283 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" as "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" among the applicable provisions of the Act, and since this court's permission and permission, the part of the defendant's case in the judgment below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. Judgment on the part of the claim for attachment order

A. The “risk of recommitting a homicide” under Article 5(3) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is not enough to repeat the crime, and the person who requested the attachment order is further in the future.