beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") by the court below is too unreasonable. The punishment (12 years of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is too unreasonable.
misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on prosecutor's attachment order case, the defendant misunderstanding of facts about the other person's crime and did not reflect on his own crime.
In light of this point, since the defendant is likely to again commit the same kind of murder crime, it is necessary to attach an attachment order to prevent another bona fide victim from occurring.
Nevertheless, the lower court unfairly dismissed the request for attachment order.
The court below's improper sentencing against the defendant's case is too uncomfortable.
Judgment
The crime of this case in relation to the defendant's case is a knife of the victim with the task prepared in advance by the defendant.
Although the defendant asserts that he/she took discriminatory treatment from the injured party and kills the injured party as a contingent in the course of resisting such treatment, the defendant's assertion is satisfied.
Even if assumed, such reasons cannot justify the Defendant’s crime of this case.
The Defendant’s crime of this case resulted in a serious result that the victim died, and it is evident that the bereaved family members of the victim was also subject to serious mental shock.
Since the crime, it is difficult to find out data that the defendant made a serious effort to recover damage, and the bereaved family members of the victim want to punish the defendant.
These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, there is no record of criminal punishment for violent crimes. At the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was under age 67, while paying apartment expenses for 24 hours shift work, and was under excessive stress.