All appeals filed by a prosecutor against a person subject to attachment order and a person subject to probation order shall be dismissed.

1. In light of the gravity of the crime of this case and the degree of damage inflicted upon the victim, it is unreasonable that the court below made a decision to send the case to the juvenile department against the person subject to the request for the attachment order and the person subject to the probation order (hereinafter “person subject to the request for the attachment order”), and thus, the court below’s dismissal of all of the request for the attachment order of this case and the request for the probation order of this case on the ground that the defendant case against the person subject to the request for the attachment order was

2. The following facts in the process of the instant case are apparent or apparent to this Court.

On January 9, 2015, the lower court rendered a joint trial on the case of the Defendant and the case for which the request for attachment order or probation order was made against the person subject to the request for attachment order, and decided to forward the case to the Juvenile Department.

Accordingly, on February 16, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision on each protective order against the respondent for an attachment order (U.S. District Court 2015Ma151, 152, and 153), and the respondent A and B appealed from each of the above decisions, but each appeal was dismissed on March 9, 2015 (the same court 2015Da3, 4), and the decision on each protective order against the respondent for an attachment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the decision of the Juvenile Department of the case against the person against whom the attachment order was requested, but this court dismissed the decision of the court below on March 20, 2015 on the ground that the decision of each protective disposition against the person against whom the attachment order was requested cannot be revoked (this court 2015No31), and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

3. Article 9(4) and Article 21-8 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”) shall be subject to probation and electronic device against specific crime cases pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution.