Defendant

In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to impose a probation order on the Defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing in this court are already revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There are no particular changes in the circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters on which the sentencing was imposed after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant arguments and records, and the scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentencing was made within the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unreasonable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of probation order, the lower court: (a) the Defendant began to commit each of the instant crimes since two months have not elapsed after release; (b) each of the instant crimes was similar to the number of criminal offenses committed; (c) the Defendant’s evaluation of the risk of sexual offenders in Korea (K-SORAS); and (d) the Defendant’s evaluation of the risk of recidivism at the level of “high risk of recidivism”; and (c) the results of the evaluation of the selection of mentally ill persons (PC-R); and (d) the overall point of 15 points.