준강제추행
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below that sentenced an attachment order to the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”) on the grounds that the sentence (ten months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of disclosure notification order, etc.) is too heavy, and since the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime is not recognized, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the attachment order to
2. Determination:
A. The defendant's part of the defendant's case constitutes a favorable circumstance for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized and reflected each of the crimes of this case, and deposited certain money for the victims.
However, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed against the women who were diving in soup, by taking advantage of the state of her failure to resist, and is not good, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for five months from the Jeonju District Court on June 4, 2009 and one year of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2009, and was committed as an indecent act against the said women who were 19 years of age who were locked in soup on April 2012, and the victim’s complaint was revoked and received a non-prosecution disposition on April 20, 2012, despite the record of being subject to the non-prosecution disposition on April 20, 201, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case.
In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including circumstances after the crime was committed, and the recommended sentencing guidelines, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too unreasonable compared to the Defendant’s degree of responsibility. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without
(b) The Act on the Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, part of the case of an attachment order;