Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in the part of the case against the defendant (unfair sentencing) in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (a punishment of imprisonment of three years and six months, excessive 1 p.m.) is too unreasonable and unfair (a defendant, on the grounds of appeal, only puts a knife in order to detect the situation as the defendant would be faced with an assault from the victim's daily act of assault, and does not intentionally commit murder, but did not intentionally commit murder. Although the defendant argued to the effect that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, the defendant withdrawn the above argument to the effect that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the first trial date, and argued to dispute only the unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. The argument such as mistake cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and even after examining ex officio the above facts, there was an error of law by misunderstanding

The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant for a period of ten years is unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the part of the case involving the Defendant, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the crime of this case; (b) the degree of injury inflicted upon the victim by the Defendant’s act does not seem to be relatively serious; and (c) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment upon agreement with the victim.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed in a restaurant by the defendant after the defendant sleeped the victim's daily behaviors in the restaurant, and the victim sleeped out of the restaurant, and attempted to kill the victim's clothes and the chests only once in the restaurant. However, the crime of this case was committed in light of the motive, method, content of the crime, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim.