Defendant

In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part on which the Defendant’s judgment was found guilty, the part on which the medical care, custody and custody claim was filed, and the part on which the request for an attachment order was filed. Accordingly, the lower court did not have any benefit in filing an appeal regarding the part on which the request for an attachment order was filed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one and half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s case in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the punishment by taking into account all the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant and favorable to the Defendant, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and even considering all the factors indicated in the argument in the instant case, the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too excessive, considering all the factors indicated in

shall not be deemed to exist.

Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Since the Defendant appealed against the Defendant’s case, the part of the medical treatment, custody, and custody application claim pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Care, Custody, etc. Act shall be deemed to have filed an appeal.

However, the Defendant did not submit the legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the medical care and custody claim, and even if examining the judgment below, the reason for examining and destroying this part ex officio.