성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인유사성행위)등
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of three years and six months, and a short term of three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person for whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) (a short-term two years of imprisonment and a short-term two years of imprisonment, and a total of 80 hours of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant case (e.g., both types of punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for an attachment order against the Defendant even though the Defendant’s request for an attachment order is dangerous to
2. Determination
A. Regarding the part of the defendant's case (the part on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor) the defendant is a juvenile; the defendant is a delay in intellectual development of the middle degree; the victim I does not want the punishment of the defendant; the defendant's parents do the lead of the defendant; the defendant's parents want the defendant's wife; and the defendant's conviction of imprisonment as to each of the crimes of this case becomes final and conclusive, there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant must serve a prison term of eight months after the suspension of execution sentenced on September 6, 2012 and suspended imprisonment.
However, the defendant, without any justifiable reason, detained the disabled persons and blish them with violence and property, and putting them into the victim's sexual organ in the mouth of the victim (the original inquiry time (2013Gohap371). The victim, who was a juvenile under the age of 13, returned home, was in the nearby commercial toilet, threatened the victim with his sexual organ, threatened the victim with his sexual organ, and allowed the victim to sexual organ (2013Gohap44 at the original inquiry [2013Gohap4] and interview the crime, and the method of the crime was cruel without any difference with adults. Although the mental and physical shock of the victims is considerable, the defendant did not agree with some victims up to the trial of the case, and on September 6, 2012, the defendant did not agree with some victims until the trial of the case.