2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, since the defendant alleged that the right to a participatory trial was infringed because he did not receive a certificate of intention of the participatory trial

According to the records of this case, the defendant was served on Jun. 26, 2015 with an Ansan vocational training prison on Jun. 26, 2015, the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch 2015Gohap136 on Jun. 26, 2015 (in relation to the fact inquiry result of the head of the Sungsung vocational training prison in this court), and it can be recognized that the defendant did not submit a document stating his/her intention to the above court as to whether he/she wishes a participatory trial even after seven days have passed since he/she was confined to the Sungsung vocational training prison (Article 8 (3) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials). Thus, the defendant's right to a participatory trial was infringed.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. Considering the various circumstances cited by the lower court in determining the sentence of the Defendant case and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

B. The prosecutor who filed an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding an attachment order is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case for which a request for attachment order is filed in accordance with Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.