Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the person filing an application for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) asserted that the lower court’s punishment (16 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unfluent and unfair.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing of the Defendant case on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed, compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s ex post facto core character, etc., it is reasonable to respect it in a case where the sentencing conditions are not changed, and the first instance court’s sentencing is not exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s view and the first instance court’s sentencing is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). No special change exists in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court’s examination and the lower court’s ex post facto core sentencing, the lower court’s judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. As long as a judgment and the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant's case, it is deemed that an appeal has been filed against the request for attachment order under Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., however, there is no petition of appeal or the reason for appeal submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, or his/her defense counsel, and there is no ground for reversal ex officio as to this part.