2019.Do123 (Joint Attachment Orders)

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Yellow Gyeong-hun, Lee Jin-hun, and Sazil

(Consolidation) Judgment

1. The argument that the Defendant and the person subject to an application for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) failed to consider the grounds for sentencing favorable to the Defendant and the person subject to the application for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) at the lower judgment, or mistakenly applied the sentencing guidelines constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. Ultimately, examining various circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character, and environment, the relationship with the victim, the motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for life.

2. In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances indicated in the records as to the request for attachment order, the lower court did not err in its judgment that upheld the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances:

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee and Justice Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hwan of the District Court