beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the former Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020; hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”) while dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the case of request for attachment order. The court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation ex officio, and only the defendant appealed.
Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, the scope of trial 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.
2. As to the part of the defendant's case, the defendant and his defense counsel did not state the grounds for appeal concerning the defendant's case, and the defendant and his defense counsel expressed their intention not to dispute the part of the probation order of the court below separately on the part of the defendant's case through the statement of the grounds for appeal and the first trial date.
(A) In light of the records, there is no reason to see that the lower court’s sentence is unreasonable, and there is no reason to ex officio investigation as to the part of the Defendant’s case. 3. As to the probation order ex officio
A. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation, although the defendant does not pose a risk of repeating a crime.
B. As stated in its reasoning, the lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order on the ground that it is highly probable that the Defendant again committed robbery in the future to the extent that it is necessary to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device after the completion of the sentence, and that there is considerable probability to undermine legal peace. On the other hand, the lower court acknowledged the following by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court