Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment of conviction against a prosecuted case, a judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device with respect to a request for attachment order, and a judgment dismissing the request of a prosecutor for probation order.

Since then, only the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the defendant's case and the case of attachment order.

The title was changed by Act No. 16923 on February 4, 2020.

The "Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders" as stated in the judgment of the court below is prior to the amendment of the title.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9 (8), there is no interest in appeal to the defendant with respect to the case of request for probation order, which shall be excluded from the scope of judgment of the original court.

Therefore, only the defendant case and the request for attachment order are included in the scope of the trial of the court below.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal

A. The lower court’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant’s case portion) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the Defendant’s occupation, etc., the attachment order and compliance with the lower court’s decision is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The appellate court needs to respect the sentencing of the lower court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the part of the Defendant case) and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the family relationship, the Defendant’s health condition, and the degree of reflectivity, are considered, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

(1) A variety of times including punishment for committing a sex crime, etc. by a defendant.