Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the crime of murder in this case, the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol. 2) The report by the Defendant of misunderstanding the legal principles on self-denunciation was made by the Defendant’s implied intent at least under the permission of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was arrested on the police officer dispatched therefrom, and thus constitutes a case where the Defendant voluntarily surrenders through a third party.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not reduce the punishment for murder of the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on self-denunciation.

3) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant, on an contingent basis, led to the instant murder crime, and that the Defendant’s self-denunciation was discovered through the Defendant’s three villages, etc., and thus the crime was discovered. 4) Although it is not likely that the illegal Defendant in the attachment order would commit the murder again, the lower court’s imposition of the attachment order is unreasonable

B. In light of the Defendant’s attitude toward life and the risk of recidivism, etc., as indicated in the instant murder crime committed by the prosecutor (unfairness), the lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the defendant's mental suffering claim, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking considerable amounts at the time of the crime of murder in this case.

However, in light of the background leading up to the instant murder crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 52 of the Criminal Act is applied.