beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the nature of the crime of this case; (b) the severity of damage; (c) the seriousness of the damage; and (d) the fact that the person requesting the attachment order committed the crime of this case again despite the fact that the juvenile protection case was pending (Ulsan District Court 2016Ma369) due to the same type of crime, the person requesting the attachment order again committed the crime of this case, the court below dismissed the request for the attachment order of this case on the grounds that the person requesting the attachment order falls under Article 5(1)3 and 4 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, etc., and thus the attachment order should be issued to the person requesting the attachment order, notwithstanding the fact that the person requesting the attachment order of this case falls under Article 5(1)3 and 4 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring,
2. The following facts in the process of the instant case are apparent or obvious to this Court.
A. On February 17, 2016, the lower court rendered a joint trial with the Defendant case against the person who requested the attachment order, and dismissed the request for the attachment order of this case on the same day.
B. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the above order to forward the case to the juvenile department in Busan High Court to 2017. However, on April 3, 2017, the above appeal was dismissed, and the above order to forward the case to the juvenile department became final and conclusive around that time.
(c)
Accordingly, on April 5, 2017, the Juvenile Department of the Ulsan District Court held that the above defendant case (2017 Food 79 case) was combined with the case No. 2016 P. 369 against the person who requested the attachment order, and rendered a disposition No. 7 against the person who requested the attachment order (a disposition entrusted to a hospital, sanatorium, or juvenile medical care facility under the Act on the Treatment of Protected Juveniles, Etc.). The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.
3. The court below dismissed the request for the attachment order of this case.