beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. With respect to the part of the case of the defendant, the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years in order to undergo the protective observation for three years when it sentenced the defendant guilty (two years of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, etc.), and to verify whether the matters to be observed during the period of protective observation are observed during the period of protective observation, and ordered the suspension of execution regarding the case of the defendant, the court below should dismiss the prosecutor's request for the attachment order. However, since the defendant's attachment order was issued to verify whether the matters to be observed for the protective observation as above, it did not dismiss the prosecutor's
Since only the defendant appealed against this, the prosecutor did not appeal for the reason that the sentencing was unfair, the part on the case of the request for attachment order does not have interest in the appeal.
Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the part of the case of the defendant (including the attachment order to verify whether the matters to be observed for protection observation are observed) belongs to the scope of the trial of this court.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, etc.”) is too unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of three years while ordering the Defendant to observe his/her protection along with the suspended sentence.
3. Determination
A. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and divided his mistake in depth, and the Defendant was the primary offender who had no record of committing each of the instant crimes before committing each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant was four persons during the trial of the lower court.