beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal filed by the person who filed for the medical care and custody and the person who filed for the order of observation is dismissed.
Reasons
1. There is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s part of the case, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the sentencing factors asserted by the Defendant and the person who filed a claim for the order to observe the protective custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) have already been deliberated during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and the lower court appears to have sufficiently considered the determination of the sentence against the Defendant. Since the new sentencing materials have not been submitted, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s new sentencing materials.
In addition, considering all circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering all the circumstances that may be considered favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the instant crime was caused by the Defendant’s assistance.
Defendant’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing in the lower court is not accepted.
2. As long as the Defendant appealed on the part of the case of medical treatment, custody, and protection order, it is presumed that the Defendant filed an appeal on the case of medical treatment, custody, and protection order pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment, Care, Custody, etc. Act and Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc.
However, there is no indication of the grounds for appeal concerning the petition of appeal or the reason for appeal submitted by the defendant or defense counsel.
B. Although examining the judgment of the court below, there is no reason to ex officio investigate and reverse the judgment.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.