Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were mentally and physically weak due to an explosive disorder, alcohol disorder, and mental and behavioral disorder by alcohol use, etc., for which the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were suffering from ordinary level at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (30 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing of the prosecutor is unfair.

Considering that the criminal defendant in violation of an attachment order is highly likely to repeat murder, it is unfair for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device only for 20 years, which is an excessive short period of 20 years (see, e.g., order 30 years). Determination on the part of the defendant in the case of the defendant to the extent that the defendant's mental and physical disorder was unable to suppress his/her impulse, and the circumstance where the crime was committed was committed as a result of the failure to suppress his/her impulse, can be found to a normal person. Thus, barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant requires the above person with the above character defect to restrain his/her impulse and to require him/her to comply with the law, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defect, such as a disorder, does not constitute a mental and physical disorder, which

However, even if a defect of the same nature as that of the shock adjustment disorder is so serious that it can be evaluated to be equal to that of the person with mental disorder within its original meaning, the crime resulting therefrom should be deemed to be an offense caused by mental or physical disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14512, Feb. 10, 201). The judgment of the court below was contested with the same or similar purpose as the grounds for appeal in the court below, and the court below based on the above legal principles, the court below held that the defendant was sporadism at the O hospital located in Daegu-gu Q from February 5, 2018 to February 26, 2018.