The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case for which the attachment order was requested and the part of the case for which the probation order was requested while rendering a judgment upon conviction on the part of the defendant’s case. Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part of the case

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the scope of inquiry by this court shall be limited to the part of the defendant's case among the judgment below, and the part of the request for attachment order and the request for probation

2. The sentencing of the lower court is too inappropriate.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

The defendant's specific judgment is the crime of this case.