The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the defendant's appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below’s scope of trial is to render a judgment of conviction against a prosecuted case, dismiss a prosecutor’s request regarding a request for attachment order, and issue 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 filed an appeal. Thus, the part regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of trial of this court, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, as there is no benefit of appeal.

On the other hand, in light of the fact that the probation order has the nature of a protective disposition against the defendant, that the probation order is imposed upon the request for probation order and that the court issues the probation order ex officio when dismissing the request for the attachment order, it is reasonable to equally deal with the method of appeal by the same treatment as that for the probation order at the probation office, and that the defendant has an opportunity to dispute substantially against the probation order at the court below, as long as the defendant filed an appeal against the accused case, it is deemed that the appeal against the probation order has been filed by applying Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Electronic Monitoring Act mutatis mutandis. Thus, the scope of the trial at this court

B. Determination 1 of the Defendant case is, based on the statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the sentencing of the first instance court, which is respected under the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle taken by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, is relevant.