All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (17 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The lower judgment that dismissed the request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device even if the person who requested the attachment order to whom the request was made would pose a risk of rehomicide again, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, etc.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime was committed on the ground that the Defendant was killed on the ground that the Defendant received a quasi-friendly victim who did not live together with him/her and did not incur living expenses for not more than two months, and that he/she was bleeped, and the body was stored in the clothes, along with the body of the deceased. The crime was committed in the course of the crime, and even after preparing for exemption for the purpose of murdering in advance, the crime was committed, such as directly taking the bath of the victim without the death of the victim, and the nature and the circumstances of the crime were very poor, and the victim’s grandchildren lose their guardian who was brought up on behalf of his/her parent.