Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do201, Aug. 25, 201). Thus, the Defendants’ claim for attachment order against the Defendants is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the Defendant’s case on which the Defendant was pronounced guilty in the lower court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, order to complete a 120-hour course, order to complete a 2-year and 80-hour course) that the court below sentenced to the Defendants is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The crime of this case regarding Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing constitutes an offense under Article 8(1) and Article 4(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which resulted in rape with Defendant A in a state of failing to resist under the influence of alcohol, and thereby resulting in injury to the said victim in the course of such rape, etc., and thus constitutes imprisonment for life or for at least ten years.

In addition to discretionary mitigation, the lower court made a statutory mitigation on the ground that drinking brought about as the circumstance alleged by Defendant A was in a state of mental disorder, but according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it can be recognized that Defendant A was in a state where he did not have the ability to discern things and make decisions at the time when the instant crime was committed. Therefore, statutory mitigation on the ground of mental disorder may be made.