special cases concerning the punishment, etc. of sexual crimes,

Indecent act by compulsion, violence (indecent act by blood),

(Joint) 2013 Jeonno37 (Joint Attachment Orders)

2013. Judgment 11 (Consolidation)

A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the first instance court did not recognize it, by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) did not recognize it.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the defendant is too unhurd and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mental disorder

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court:

In other words, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime, and appears to have an attitude to depend on a somewhat breathous intent even in the ordinary sense. However, considering the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state where the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant was in a state where he lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing

It is recognized that there are favorable factors for sentencing such as the fact that the defendant recognized his criminal act against his own will, the fact that the defendant suffers from the post-certification of alcohol use, and the fact that there has been no history of punishment for sexual crimes so far.

On the other hand, the defendant committed several assaults against the wife C, and committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim, who is his or her father, by overcoming his or her age, and attempted rape, and committed an attempted rape. Accordingly, the victim's state ○○ suffered a big mental and physical pain, and suffered a big impediment to the formation of a sound sexual sense, and even though the victims' damage has been serious, it is also recognized that there is an unfavorable sentencing factor such as the victim's failure to receive a letter from the victims.

Examining the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. comprehensively, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed to be adequate, and it does not seem to be too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. Part on the case of request for attachment order

According to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, where a defendant and a prosecutor have filed an appeal against the judgment on a specific crime case, an appeal is also filed against the judgment on the request for attachment order. However, the defendant and a prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal as to the case for which the attachment order is requested, and there is no reason to investigate and reverse this part ex officio, even upon examining the judgment of the first instance court (the defendant asserts to the effect that there is no risk of recommitting a sexual crime as to the case for attachment order on July 24, 2013, which is the date on which the arguments are closed in the trial, but this is the

13. A legitimate ground for appeal cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, since it is asserted after 20 days have elapsed since June 17, 2013, on which the receipt of the trial record was served to a public defender or a public defender.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 9(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is clear that the "victim 9(1)" is the victim's main ○○," it is correct in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Judges Lee Gyeong-tae

Judges Lee So-young