Defendant

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

The judgment below

Attached Form

The title of “matters to be observed”.

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction against a prosecuted case, a judgment of probation with respect to a request for probation order, and a judgment of dismissal with respect to a prosecutor’s request for attachment order.

Since then, only the defendant and the person who requested probation order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") appealed against the defendant's case and the case of probation order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), there is no interest in appeal against the Defendant regarding the application for attachment order. Therefore, the application for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the Defendant’s case and the case for probation order are included in the scope of the trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (limited to imprisonment with labor for four years and five years) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim’s mother in the case of probation order request, ordering “the victim to not have access” to matters to be observed during the period of probation is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the case of the Defendant, the Defendant’s mistake is divided, and the victim and the mother of the victim use the Defendant, and appeal against the Defendant (including the sentencing data (e.g., interview data) submitted by the Defendant also contain the same purport), and there are multiple circumstances that may be considered under the favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment due to the same or similar crime and that there was no history of criminal punishment heavier than imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment.

Even if such circumstances are fully considered, the lower court’s sentence exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion in sentencing, in particular, in that it is deemed that the lower court’s punishment was exceeded.