Do 2018 Do 9915 A. homicide

(b) Larceny;

C. Violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act

(d) Damage to property;

(e) Violence;

F. Violation of the Road Traffic Act

(g) A special injury;

2018 Order to attach 70 Doz. (Joint)

A

Defendant and the respondent of the attachment order and the prosecutor

Attorney BX (State Ship)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2018 1, 2018 Jeonno 1 (Joint) 2018, 2018 decided June 7, 2018

Article 18 (Judgment of Application for Compensation Order)

September 13, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the defendant case

A. Even if the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") committed self-denunciation as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants"), it does not necessarily require to be taken into account in sentencing, but it does not necessarily require to be taken into account in sentencing, and even if the defendant voluntarily surrenderss, it cannot be viewed as erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on self-denunciation by failing to reduce the number of persons according to the court below's reasoning for appeal.

In light of various circumstances, such as the background and method of committing the instant crime, Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, which may be known through the record, it is difficult to deem that the instant case was in the condition of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court, which did not recognize the physical and mental loss, did not err by violating the relevant statutory provisions, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Article 4(1) of the Medical Care and Custody Act provides, “A prosecutor may request the competent court to provide the medical care and custody where a person subject to the medical care needs to receive the medical care and custody.” Article 4(7) of the same Act provides, “The court may request the medical care and custody from a prosecutor without having received a request for the medical care and custody order from a public prosecutor under the jurisdiction of 60% of the Act on the Medical Care and Custody.” Therefore, the lower court’s request for the medical care and custody order cannot be deemed as 60% of the legal form related to the medical treatment.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship between the victims, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, there are no significant grounds to recognize that the sentencing of the lower court is too unfair, even if the circumstances alleged as the grounds of appeal are considered.

B. On the grounds of appeal by a prosecutor, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, which rendered legal mitigation on the grounds of Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, on the grounds of the same reasons as the judgment in its holding. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the case requiring attachment order

A. Examining the reasoning for Defendant’s appeal in light of the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record, it is reasonable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering Defendant to attach an electronic device tracking a location for 20 years on the ground that Defendant was at risk of repeating a crime of murder on the ground as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal at the same time.

B. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the Prosecutor is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the instant case for the attachment order in the event that the Prosecutor filed an appeal regarding the Defendant case. However, the petition for appeal does not contain any description of the grounds of appeal and does not contain any description of the grounds of appeal in the statement of grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Cho Jae-chul

Jeju High Court Decision 201No. 50