beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder except for the part for which the attachment order is requested shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year.
Reasons
1. The court below sentenced the defendant to a conviction for a prosecuted case, dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding a request for attachment order, and sentenced the defendant to a probation order ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3 (2) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act"), and only the defendant appealed.
Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, the scope of judgment of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's case and the part of the ex officio probation order as there is no benefit of appeal.
According to Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Electronic Monitoring Act, if a defendant files an appeal against the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case, the part of the case for which the attachment order is applied or the part for which the probation order is requested, shall be deemed as having filed an appeal, and it is reasonable to view the part of the probation order issued by the court ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act as the same applies. Thus, the appeal against the part of the probation order issued by
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Although there are special circumstances under which the defendant should not disclose or notify personal information to the improper defendant of an order to disclose personal information, it is unfair that the court below ordered the disclosure of personal information.
3. Determination
A. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency in a situation where the Defendant recognized his mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and took drugs due to ordinary WIG disorders, etc., and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency when he took alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and his judgment was somewhat confisced.