beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the court below’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant and the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and the grounds for sentencing asserted by a prosecutor appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence. Since new materials for sentencing have not been submitted to this court, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.
In addition, in full view of the various sentencing conditions that the court below properly decided, such as the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he committed the crime due to murder, on the other hand, even though he committed the crime of this case within the repeated period, it cannot be said that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion by putting the defendant at risk.
All the arguments between the defendant and the prosecutor disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below are rejected.
2. The judgment on the case for which a request to attach an attachment order is filed shall be deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case for which a request to attach an attachment order is filed pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders,
However, the defendant and the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the request for attachment order, and there is no reason for reversal ex officio.
3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed on the grounds of merit.