강제추행등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Sentencing in sentencing) is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) (one month of imprisonment).
2. Determination
A. The Defendant’s crime of this case in the part of this case is likely to be committed with an indecent act by force following the victim (at the age of 24 years) who was going on the way of the Defendant during one night.
The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for rape and committed the instant crime again after having completed the treatment and custody on the condition of attaching an electronic tracking device.
Damage victims are punished for defendants.
However, the Defendant, recognizing the instant crime, is against the Defendant.
It seems that the failure of the defendant to divide the crime of this case has influenced the crime of this case.
It is relatively clear that the social relationship of the defendant is relatively clear, and the family of the defendant will make every effort to prevent recidivism.
There are many things.
In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument in this case, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfasible.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
B. As long as a prosecutor filed an appeal against the Defendant’s case, the part of the attachment order case is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the claim for attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc.
However, the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the request for attachment order, and even if examining the judgment of the court below ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of three years, there is no reason for reversal after investigating it ex officio.
3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor’s appeal is to observe and observe Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and to protect specific criminal offenders.