beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the Defendant and the case regarding the request for attachment order.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc., the request for attachment order shall be excluded from the scope of the trial of this court because there is no benefit in appeal with respect to the part of the attachment order case.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, since the said court did not submit new
In addition, the crime of this case is committed in full view of the following facts: (a) although the defendant has been forced to withdraw money by threatening the victim with the excessive prepared by the defendant in advance; (b) in light of the criminal implements and methods, it is not good to commit the crime; (c) the defendant has not been compensated or has not received a letter from the damaged person until this court; and (d) the defendant has been punished several times due to robbery, etc., among various sentencing factors, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) even though the court's punishment against the defendant is too excessive, and the defendant is more favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of his/her own crime, and the crime is committed by him/her.
3. Conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed on the ground that it has no reason, and ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part “a person who attempted special robbery” of the first and second sentences of the lower judgment is “2017, and 30,000,000,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 0,00