The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable to dismiss a request for an attachment order issued by an unjust criminal defendant and a person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the criminal defendant”) despite the risk of recommitting a murder crime.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances a prosecutor asserts as an element of sentencing in this court are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Considering the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, given that the prosecutor’s appeal is based on the grounds of appeal.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for an attachment order pursuant to Article 9(4)4 of the former Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020) while issuing a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor. As seen earlier, the lower court’s sentencing is the same.