Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal for the part of the case of the attachment order claim and the case of the probation order claim, this part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (two years of suspended execution in October, 40 hours of lecture attendance order, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the defendant recognized the crime of this case; (b) the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (c) the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

Meanwhile, the instant crime committed an indecent act by the victim, who was a passenger of a taxi driving by the defendant, was committed on the part of the victim, and the defendant engaged in the taxi driving business, despite his duty to safely protect passengers, committed an indecent act against the victim under the influence of alcohol at night, and thus, the crime is very bad, and the defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times, and the crime is somewhat related to the instant crime, which was punished by a fine for the violation of the Child Welfare Act by carrying out a negative comment on the high school student, who is a passenger of the taxi, and was punished by a fine for the violation of the Child Welfare Act, and was investigated under the suspicion of quasi-rapeing a female who is a passenger of the taxi, but without being aware of the fact that the defendant was subject to a disposition of revocation of the complaint and without being aware of the right to institute a prosecution.