준강제추행등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
In addition, a person who requests an attachment order shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
(2).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (in the case of the defendant, unreasonable sentencing on the part of the case) by the defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of unreasonable sentencing on the part of the Defendant case is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The Defendant committed a crime by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the part regarding the request for attachment order, and committed a crime by a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of sexual assault, and the risk of recidivism is assessed as “high level” even in the degree of risk of sex offender, and thus, the lower court dismissed the request for attachment order. Therefore, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine
2. Determination
A. As to the part of the defendant's case, the crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the first defendant and prosecutor is an indecent act against the victims who were locked within a so set period of time that the defendant used by many unspecified persons, by making soup the face of the defendant immediately after the victim's body or by making an act of self-defense and circumstances. The degree of such indecent act is not easy, the victims' sense of shame and displeasure were likely to have occurred. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to sexual crimes such as indecent act against the women who were frying in soup, etc., and the defendant was unable to obtain a letter from E, and the defendant was not able to recover from damage.
However, the defendant may be deemed to have been voluntarily present at an investigative agency and investigated, and this may be deemed to have been self-denunciation, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and is in profoundly against the victim, and the victim agreed to pay compensation to D among the victims when they were in a trial.