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

At the lower court, the Defendant filed a request for an attachment order and a probation order, and the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the accused case, and rendered a judgment of dismissing the request of the prosecutor for the attachment order even though the probation order was issued.

On the other hand, only the defendant filed an appeal.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Attachment, etc. of Electronic Devices (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”), the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order against the defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, etc.) against the Defendant case and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

The defendant in the case of probation order does not pose a risk of reoffending, so probation order is unfair.

The judgment of unfair sentencing on a case involving a defendant refers to the case where the sentence of the original judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, under favorable circumstances for the Defendant, found the Defendant to have committed the instant crime and erred by itself.