(Special Robbery, Rape, etc.)

(b) Special robbery;

(c) Night theft;

(d) An attempted larceny at night;

208No. 4 (Joint Attachment Orders)

Housing Daegu

Reference domicile

The 101-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the punishment of the original judgment.

The punishment of the court below (25 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part of the defendant's case

Each of the crimes of this case must be committed by the defendant and the person claiming the name of the person to whom the attachment was made (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant").

The crime is extremely poor in light of the repetition, cruelness, etc. of the crime, which is committed by the young women who intrude into the studio or house in which they reside and threaten the victims with a deadly weapon and forcibly take property, and further rapes or commits indecent acts against the victims. The defendant is over two years.

In spite of the fact that seven rapes have been committed during the period of school life, six persons have been raped or committed in attempted rapes, and that the crime of robbery, rapes, etc. has been committed to the extent that they could immediately move into action without being considered, and that there seems to have been a habit for the above crime, and that the victims have experienced difficulties due to these cruel crimes, and that it is obvious that the victims have suffered mental distress and suffering from mental distress and suffering, it seems that no measures have been taken to reduce physical and mental distress between the victims and their family members. Considering that the Defendant had repeatedly committed a special robbery crime more than one year, the Defendant’s environment, personality and behavior, occupation, family relationship, and growth conditions, it is unreasonable and unfair from all circumstances that the Defendant had reached an agreement on his/her own, even if having reached an adequate and uneasible judgment, it cannot be considered that the Defendant has committed a larceny and uneasible crime, and that the Defendant has reached an agreement on his/her own family environment.

B. Part of the attachment order case

In the event that a defendant filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, the defendant is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding an attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(6) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders. However, the defendant or his/her defense counsel did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, and the judgment of the court below is not examined and reversed ex officio.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the 101-day number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment is to be included in the sentence of the lower judgment pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act. (Inasmuch as it is apparent that the case name of the lower judgment was omitted by this mistake, it shall be added ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and it shall not be referred to as “one-day period prior to the 7th end of the criminal facts” and “one-day period of detention at the end of the 7th end of the criminal facts,” among the application of the statutes, it is apparent that the “Act on the Monitoring of Location Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders is each clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1).

Lee Jae-deok

Kim Sung-he