The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

. Information on the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (A) Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserted mental disorder, and the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were in the state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

B) The period of the disclosure and notification order (five years) ordered by the lower court by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing (ten years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The attachment period of an electronic tracking device (20 years) declared by the lower court in the part of the request for attachment order is too unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the part of the defendant's case

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's authority, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add "Article 35 of the Criminal Act" instead of withdrawing "Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes" among the applicable provisions of the indictment in this case. Since the court permitted it, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is found that the defendant committed the crime of this case while drinking, but in light of the background and method leading to the crime of this case, the horses and behavior of the defendant before and after the crime of this case, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. The Defendant had been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime even prior to the determination of the unfair argument regarding the period of disclosure and notification order, and the Defendant had been released for one year after the date of release.