The judgment below

Of them, the part concerning Defendant B and the part concerning Defendant A against whom the attachment order is requested.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) by asserting the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the case of the attachment order claim

(2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order against A is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism. (2) The lower court’s imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts does not have raped the victim I as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below. (2) Although the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle.

3) The lower court’s imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. C. Defendant B’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “risk of recommitting a homicide” under Article 5(3) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is insufficient to determine the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the prosecutor’s claim on the request for attachment order order by a prosecutor means that the possibility of recommitting a homicide is insufficient and it is highly probable that the person who requested the attachment order will injure legal peace by again committing a homicide

The existence of the risk of recidivism of murder crime shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the motive and means of the crime before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime. Such a determination shall be based on the time of the judgment, since it is a assumptive judgment for the future.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2289, 2012Do5, 2012Do5, 2012Do51, May 10, 2012). The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, ① Defendant A’s neglect from the victim B at a place with others.