성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(친족관계에의한강간등)등
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court’s determination because the new materials of sentencing were not submitted in this case.
In addition, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant"), three times by rapeed the victim C, who is a friendship, and caused mental disorder to the mental function, and committed an indecent act by force on five occasions by the victim D, who was a minor at the time of committing the crime, and the crime of this case was committed in extremely poor quality. The victim C is under treatment of drugs and awareness behavior due to uneasiness, depression, influence and memory degradation, anti-influence of the coercion, disorder, and disability, etc., and the victim D was under treatment of drugs and mental therapy due to the victim's reexperience, apprehension, fear, fear, and decentralization, even though the victims suffered from such severe mental suffering, the victim was unable to receive a letter from the victims, and the victims wanted to punish the defendant, and considering the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant among various factors of sentencing was led to the confession of the crime of this case, and even if it exceeded the extent of punishment for the defendant, there is no reasonable discretion to impose a fine against the defendant.
Defendant’s assertion that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable is rejected.
2. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal against the part of the case of the lower judgment regarding the attachment order, the protection and observation of specific criminal offenders and electronic devices.