The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of twenty years, and Defendant B of twenty-five years, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) committed murder against the victim G (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) due to suspicion of external appearance, such as returning home at night at night and sounding with other males after drinking while operating a siren company. However, the lower court sentenced the above Defendant to a severe punishment on the ground that the lower court acknowledged the aforementioned Defendant as the main motive for murdering the Defendant’s desire to obtain ownership of a siren company or murdering the victim. The sentence imposed by the lower court (25 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) At the time of each of the instant crimes claiming mental disorder, Defendant B did not consider this in spite of the mental and physical state of both polar disorder, sulve disorder, and sulve disorder. (2) The lower court’s decision that the lower court sentenced Defendant B to the allegation of unfair sentencing (30 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order Defendant B to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years. C. 1) The Defendants’ act of killing the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing is deemed as having been closely planned, and the nature of the crime is bad, and Defendant A declared missing the victims after the murder was committed, and Defendant B’s abandonment of the body is also poor after the crime. However, each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2 In spite of high risk of committing murder, Defendant A’s wrongful assertion related to the request for attachment order was dismissed despite the high risk of committing murder, and Defendant B’s attachment period is too shorter than 10 years, despite the high risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. According to the medical confirmation (Evidence No. 1) submitted to the trial by the defense counsel regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mental and physical disorder, and the fact inquiry statement (Evidence No. 1) and the reply letter of reply to the fact inquiry (Evidence No. 2) Defendant B submitted to Defendant B on July 12, 201.