2018do89 (Consolidation) An order to attach an electronic device

1. A;

2. B

Attorney G (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

(Consolidation) Judgment

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the respondent for attachment order A (hereinafter referred to as Defendant A)

Examining the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s age, character, conduct, and environment; (b) relationship with the victim; (c) motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) circumstances surrounding the records, etc., the sentencing of the lower court that upheld the first instance judgment that declared imprisonment for life against Defendant A even if considering the circumstances asserted by Defendant A as the grounds of final appeal, is too unreasonable.

B. As to the claim for attachment order

As long as Defendant A filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, the appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding the case for which the request for attachment order is sought. However, there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and no grounds for appeal as to this part are found even in the appellate brief.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the respondent B (hereinafter referred to as Defendant B) for attachment order

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the charge against Defendant B was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Examining various circumstances, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced Defendant B to ten years of imprisonment with prison labor, even if considering the circumstances asserted as the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, is too unreasonable.

B. As to the claim for attachment order

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance ordering Defendant B to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, considering that Defendant B was at risk of recommitting a crime of murder, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Kim Gin-young

Justices Cho Jae-chul

Jeju High Court Decision 201No. 50