Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")

(2) The lower court’s sentence (13 years of imprisonment) is too heavy. The prosecutor’s office of unreasonable sentencing: the lower court’s sentence is too minor.

B. The lower court erred by dismissing the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device of this case, since the part of the attachment order case is likely to repeat a crime.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively took into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds of sentencing, and determined the Defendant’s punishment within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

As a result, our society should respond to the crime of this case, which took advantage of the existence of the most valuable value of the human life without permission of the victim, and took away the victim's life without permission, and thereby took the victim's family members as well as his family members, as well as the victim, with severe punishment. As such, the defendant has no intention to avoid severe punishment.

Accordingly, taking into account the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, various factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, damage recovery, and criminal records, etc. as indicated in the argument of this case, shall be comprehensively taken into account. When applying the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is sufficiently determined within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is too heavy as alleged by the Defendant or that it is too weak as alleged by the prosecutor.

Both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

B. As to the case for which an attachment order is requested, the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as stated in its reasoning regarding the risk of recidivism.