Do 2015 Do 19107 A. Robbery

B. Violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business

(c) Fraud;

(d) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving);

E. Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Influence)

obscenity using a new medium

(f) Intrusiond buildings;

(g)thief;

2015 order to attach 281(Joints)

A

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorney CU (Korean Charter)

Daegu High Court Decision 2015-524, 2015 Jeonno 85 (Joint) decided November 26, 2015

Judgment

January 28, 2016

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the defendant case

According to the records, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), the court below's first instance court's decision that argued the misunderstanding of facts as well as the misunderstanding of facts on the grounds of appeal was dismissed on the first trial date. In such a case, the court below's assertion that the misunderstanding of facts was illegal on the grounds of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument to the effect that there is an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the method of examining sentencing and determining sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing. However, considering the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that there is a substantial reason for recognizing that the judgment of the first instance court, which maintained the first instance court’s imprisonment for 30 years with respect to Defendant, was extremely unfair, even if considering the circumstances in which the grounds for appeal is asserted, is considered.

2. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record as to the case claiming attachment order, it is reasonable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the Defendant was at risk of robbery and recidivism on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment below, and on the ground that the Defendant was at risk of recidivism, and it is not unlawful as to the allegation of the grounds of appeal at the time of the appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim So-young