아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등추행)등
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.
3 Unfair defendants are subject to exemption from disclosure disclosure notification order, and even if it is not so, the period imposed by the court below is too long and unfair.
B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.
2. Determination
A. 1) According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case may be sufficiently recognized. In the same purport, the court below’s decision that the facts charged in this case was guilty is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant in regard to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing. 2) The circumstance where the defendant committed the crime in this case under the state of mental and physical disability due to the occurrence of contact with a kind of sexual intercourse is favorable to the defendant.
The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of quasi-rape at Seoul High Court on May 27, 199, as well as for two years from November 20, 201 to January 22, 201, due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts at Open Place) over a total of eight occasions from around November 201 to around January 22, 201. The instant crime was committed before the lapse of two months after the execution of the final sentence. The content of the instant crime causes a large sense of sexual humiliation to the victim who is under the age of the instant crime. The Defendant actually suffered a large mental impulse with the victim, but the Defendant is consistently held liable for the crime.