Defendant

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

The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the Defendant case and ordered probation for five years as to the part of the probation order case. However, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing a prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the attachment order case, and only the Defendant and the person who requested probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal regarding the part of the attachment order case, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order case is separate and finalized and is not subject to the judgment of the court.

Meanwhile, although the defendant appealed against the accused case in the petition of appeal and in the statement of grounds of appeal, and stated that the part of probation order is not disputed, as long as the accused case has lodged an appeal against the accused case, it is deemed that the defendant also filed an appeal against the request for probation order under Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the court below ordered employment restrictions to institutions related to children and juveniles, etc. although there are special circumstances that prevent the defendant from restricting employment.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the sentencing on the grounds of statutory penalty is a discretionary determination made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., if there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them.