All appeals filed by the defendant, the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The lower court that recognized only the state of mental and physical disability as illegal, although the Defendant and the person subject to medical treatment and custody and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) were in the state of mental disorder due to mental illness, such as a tide and illness

The sentence of imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant in the case of the prosecutor's defendant (unfair form) is too unfluent and unfair.

In light of the criminal history, motive, etc. of the instant crime claiming an attachment order, the lower court that dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case, even if it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has a risk of repeating murder.

Judgment

According to the record as to the defendant's assertion of mental disorder in part of the defendant's case, as the defendant asserts, the defendant is from March 7, 2009 to the same year.

4. From November 27 to December 15 of the same year, and from March 11, 201 to the same year.

4. From April 24, 2013 to the same year.

5. Until October 23, 201, the fact that the Defendant received the treatment with the depression from the Sungdong Hospital, and the fact that on October 2, 2013, the Defendant was diagnosed with the disability of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of a

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances, namely, ① the doctor G of the National Medical Center of Medical Treatment and Custody in the Medical Treatment and Custody Center, which conducted a mental diagnosis against the defendant, are presumed to have not shown any significant difference with the present mental condition at the time of the crime in this case.