beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order; 1) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are limited to the following:
(2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment, etc.) imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing was too unreasonable and unfair, when each of the instant crimes was committed.
B. Prosecutor 1) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is unreasonable because it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from the disclosure and notification order, even though there are no special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information of the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court below which dismissed the request for attachment order since the defendant's improper dismissal of the attachment order is recognized to pose a risk of recidivism.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical argument, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol to a certain extent at the time of each of the instant crimes is recognized.
However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes in this case, the means and methods of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is determined that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case.
Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.
B. Each of the instant crimes, which are acknowledged by the evidence, evidence, and evidence law, and legal principles, committed by the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, three times as a suspended sentence, and three times as a fine, on the ground that he/she intrudes into the entrance and exit room, stolen money, damaged another person’s car without any particular reason, and confirmed that he/she responded after arrest.