Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order to observe the protection is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment against the Defendant and the requester for the observation order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), and dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the attachment order case, and rendered a judgment citing the prosecutor’s request regarding the attachment order case.

Since only the defendant filed an appeal against this issue, there is no interest in the appeal against the attachment order case, and the legal fiction of appeal under Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. does not apply to this case.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the case of the defendant and the protection observation order constitutes the scope of the trial of this court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Defendant case: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a.e., imprisonment of four years and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Upon expiration of the term of punishment for the case requiring observation of protection, it is inappropriate for the court below to undergo observation of protection as it is planned to perform work in an occupational area. Thus, the observation of protection ordered by the court below is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The sentencing of the part of the case by the Defendant is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

It is unfair to maintain the first-class sentencing judgment in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.