The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

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

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (the attempted murder part) was committed while driving on an expressway, and the Defendant attempted to threaten or congested the victim G while driving on the expressway, and there was no intention to murder the victim G.

2) The lower court’s sentence (4 years and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant in the part of the case of the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too uncomfortable.

2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device is unlawful even if the Defendant’s risk of recommitting murder was recognized, considering the details and method of the instant murder attempted, the Defendant’s tendency, etc.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion at the lower court as alleged in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances, committed an intentional murder against the Defendant.

The decision was determined.

① The Defendant driven a vehicle in the manner that “at the time of the instant crime, the gushe was found to have been exposed to the victim G while driving the vehicle in the form that “at the time of the instant crime.”

I thought that the driver driving away from the vehicle, and that the above victim was deemed to have escaped from the vehicle, and that the victim was trying to get the vehicle. However, he stated to the effect that he would have escaped beyond the diversity day.

In fact, the Defendant attempted to shock the Victim G by raising the speed of the vehicle, and in light of the fact that the said victim was trying to take over the vehicle back even after the said victim was faced with India, the Defendant appears to have had a clear intent to shock the Victim G with the vehicle at the time of the instant crime.

② Vehicles used by the Defendant for committing the instant crime.