Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (20 years of imprisonment) imposed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below on the part of the defendant case, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect this

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As the Defendant and the person subject to an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) are not submitted with new sentencing data, this court did not change the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.

In addition, the grounds alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor as grounds for appeal are all considered in determining the punishment of the defendant.

In full view of the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. As long as a prosecutor files an appeal against a case involving a prosecuted case, it is deemed that an appeal has been filed regarding a request for attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”). However, not only the grounds for appeal but also the petition of appeal filed by a prosecutor are not indicated in the grounds for appeal regarding this part, but also the grounds for reversal of the lower judgment may not be found ex officio.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Electronic Monitoring Act.