The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding a prosecuted case and the case claiming attachment order.

Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was lodged only by the Defendant, this part is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611, Jan. 18, 1983). 2. A summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment), which the lower court sentenced to imprisonment (limited to three years and six months), is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected the mistake.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner while under the influence of alcohol after being hospitalized into the hospital after alcohol dependence, and appeared to have reached an attempted crime.

However, while the defendant was dissatisfied with the victim who did not return the money claimed by the defendant, the defendant tried to murder the victim's neck and face seven times in total, by taking away the victim's neck with his left arms.

The victim seems to have undergone considerable mental and physical shock due to the crime of this case, such as undergoing a felling operation by suffering from the heat accompanied by blood transfusions, flag, timber, and arms, and trying to punish the defendant.

The Defendant committed the instant crime again even though he/she had the same force, such as being sentenced to one suspended sentence and two fines, due to the crime of injury.

In addition, the lower court comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, results, circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines.