beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. The lower court sentenced the Defendant’s case, the case claiming an attachment order, and the case claiming a probation order, to the conviction of the accused case, the judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years with respect to the case claiming an attachment order, and the judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order.
On the other hand, only the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the judgment below.
Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the part of the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court as there is no benefit to appeal by the defendant, and only the case of the defendant and the case of request for attachment order is subject to the scope of the judgment.
B. The lower court issued a compensation order to the applicant for compensation that “the Defendant shall pay consolation money of KRW 50,000,000 to the applicant for compensation,” upon the application of the applicant for compensation.
In this regard, the confirmation of the above compensation order has been prevented pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal by the defendant.
However, the defendant acknowledged all of the crimes against the applicant for compensation, and did not dispute the application for compensation order, and there is no evidence to deem that the order for compensation by the court below is illegal, so no separate judgment is made on this part.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 12 years of imprisonment) by the lower court is undue.
3. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the first instance court’s sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).