Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are the victims of cultural gift certificates, etc., and there was no intention to forcibly take property from the victims. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles or the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force on special robbery) on the premise that the defendant had an intention to commit a special robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension

2) There are special circumstances to prevent the disclosure of personal information in light of the records of committing sexual crimes and the risk of recidivism.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ordering the disclosure of personal information against the defendant is unfair.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant in order to establish a crime of robbery by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant, the intent of unlawful acquisition must be required.

The intention of illegal acquisition is the intention of illegal acquisition.

The term “right holder” refers to an intent to use and dispose of another person’s goods, such as his/her own property, according to his/her economic usage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16827, Mar. 14, 2013). In addition, in cases where one victim forcedly commits an indecent act by assault or intimidation for the purpose of committing an indecent act, and then takes the property using the use of his/her anti-dumping state during the suppression state, the crime of robbery is established without any new assault or intimidation for taking the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9630, Dec. 9, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, even if the Defendant did not express his/her money to the victim first, the injured person is cited by the Defendant.