성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(절도강간등)등
Defendant
In addition, each appeal filed by the person subject to the attachment order shall be dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court erred by ordering the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to attach an electronic tracking device although there is no risk of recidivism or recidivism of sexual crime.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant due to the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, as a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant stated that he did not have memory immediately after the arrest; (b) while recognizing the Defendant’s crime and taking a relatively cooperative attitude in the investigation and trial, the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account various sentencing conditions as favorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., in consideration of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime.
In full view of the elements of the sentencing expressed in the course of the lower court’s examination, the lower court’s determination did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination as it is.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim for attachment order, i.e., the Defendant.