In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.

Therefore, in this case where only the defendant appealed the part of the request for probation order by the court below, the defendant and the requester for probation order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are entitled to appeal against the part of the request for probation order by the court below, and only the defendant appealed, the part of the request for probation order by the court below under Article 9 (8) of the former Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020; hereinafter the same applies) is also subject to the scope of adjudication by the court below.

However, the Defendant asserted on October 8, 2020 that “the probation order of the court below is unfair and thus, is not subject to a request for a probation order of the court below,” and that “the probation order of the court below is not subject to a petition of appeal.” In addition, the Defendant asserted that the part of the court below’s case is not subject to a request for a probation order of the court below, but did not specifically indicate that the part of the court below’s case is subject to a request for a probation order of the court below.”

In addition, since there is no circumstance to see that probation order issued by the lower court is unreasonable, it should be examined only on the part of the Defendant case in the lower judgment.

In addition, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act, the part regarding the case of the request for attachment order for which the prosecutor's request is dismissed at the court below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court because there is

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal;