Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding the case for which the probation order was requested, upon the prosecutor’s request, on the part regarding which the request for the attachment order was filed while rendering a conviction on the part of the Defendant case.

On the other hand, since only the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") appealed on the part of the defendant's case, the part of the case for the attachment order shall be deemed to have an appeal under Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act"), but the part of the case for the attachment order shall be deemed to have no benefit of appeal.

Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the above Act, the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part of the judgment below regarding the defendant's case and the part regarding the attachment order

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to the symptoms, depression, etc. of a dead lutoluene (so called kiroca), which was given at the time of the instant crime.

B. The imprisonment with labor imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the following circumstances, the court below determined that the defendant could not be deemed to have suffered from the symptoms, depression, etc. that he was in a state that he had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the symptoms, depression, etc. at the time of committing the crime of this case.

(1) The defendant has undergone a relatively balanced growth and development process at a normal home.

The defendant was a student who was sexually resistant but does not have any peculiar character or behavior, and in the middle school and middle school, he is a middle-ranking right, and is a middle-ranking right.