beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) both recognize the crime and reflects the depth of the crime, and that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime while he was in actual life and was waiting to commit the crime.
However, the defendant's crime of this case is very serious in light of the number of times of residence intrusion and theft, three times special larceny, fraud using stolen physical cards, violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, etc., as well as the number of times of crime, method of crime, degree of damage, etc., and not taking any measures to recover damage up to the trial. The court below's punishment seems to have been determined by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances above, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the court below's punishment at the trial, and considering various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of crime, method and consequence of crime, etc., the defendant's punishment against the defendant is proper and too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
B. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, it is deemed that the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order, and there is no other ground for reversal ex officio as to this part.
3. Conclusion.