Robbery

2014Mno98 (Joint Attachment Orders)

Judgment

The part of the judgment below regarding the case of attachment order shall be reversed.

For a person subject to an application for attachment order, the attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered for ten years. The matters to be observed in the attached Form shall be imposed on the person subject to the application for attachment order.

(a) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order;

Considering that the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case and reflects the truth, the Defendant agreed with the victim G and endeavored to agree with the victim D, and the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record other than once a fine for this type is imposed, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable (eight years of imprisonment, etc.).

(b) Prosecutors;

1) The part of the defendant case

Considering the motive and circumstances of each of the crimes in this case and the method of the commission of each of the crimes in light of the fact that there is heavy liability for the crime, and that there is no agreement with the victim D, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uncompared and unreasonable.

2) The part for which the attachment order is requested

Considering the fact that the Defendant committed a sexual crime twice in a short period by using similar multiple methods, the risk of repeating a sexual crime is very high, and the nature of each of the sexual crimes in this case is grave, it is unreasonable to set the period for the attachment order to the Defendant too short.

2. Determination

A. Part of the defendant's case

The fact that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of each of the crimes in this case, the victim G, which was agreed with the victim, did not want to punish the defendant, deposited a considerable amount of money with the victim D, and the defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to one fine due to drinking driving.

On the other hand, the crime of rape injury by each of the crimes of this case was committed by rape and injury to the victims by using a rupture prepared in advance, as the defendant might have purchased sex on two occasions at the intervals of one month. In light of the motive and background of the crime, the method and implements of the crime, and the interval between the crimes above, etc., the liability for the crime is very heavy. The crime of special robbery of this case was committed by force on the cell phone of the above victim for the purpose of preventing the victim from reporting the victim D, and it seems that the victims were suffering from considerable pain due to each of the crimes of this case, and that there was no agreement with the victim D, etc., are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering such circumstances and other various conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentencing sentence is too heavy or unhutiled, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the discretionary authority for sentencing. Therefore, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. The part regarding the case of attachment order

Ex officio, the facts constituting the cause of the instant attachment order constitute a crime under Articles 8(1) and 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Article 297 of the Criminal Act, which provides that a person shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten years, and Article 9(1)1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Device Attachment Act”) and the upper limit of the statutory punishment under Article 9(1)1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Electronic Devices constitutes a specific crime for which death penalty or imprisonment with prison labor for life is death penalty or for life. In determining the period of attachment of the device against the Defendant, the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic device for eight years, applying Article 9(1)2 of the Electronic Device Attachment Act to the Defendant. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment’s request for attachment order cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor against the part of the case of the judgment below is without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the part of the case of the attachment order authority among the judgment below concerning the case of the attachment order order of the prosecutor is subject to an ex officio reversal as seen above, the period of attachment order of the prosecutor is too short and unreasonable, and the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order of the court below among the judgment below is reversed and the decision is delivered again following the pleadings

Facts as to the cause of attachment order and summary of evidence

Since the facts underlying the attachment order acknowledged by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, Article 35 of the Electronic Monitoring Act and Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the cause of the attachment order;

Article 5(1)3 of the Electronic Monitoring Act

1. The period of attachment order under Article 9 (1) 1 and the main sentence of Article 9 (2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act;

1. Matters to be observed under Article 9-2 (1) 1, 2-2, and 3 of the Act on the Attachment of Electronic Devices;

Judges Park Jae-in

Judge semi-Decree