유사강간치상등
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) asserted that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the Defendant revoked the claim of mental and physical disability on the first trial date of this court.
The prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment as to the part of the defendant's case (each assertion of unfair sentencing), and where the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as a sentencing factor are already discovered in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.
Considering the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the conditions of sentencing as well as the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable, as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.
The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.
B. The part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed by the prosecutor who filed an appeal against the prosecuted case is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case for which the request for attachment order was filed pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., but the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor are not stated in the grounds of appeal regarding the case for which