Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant and the respondent of the attachment order and the respondent of the attachment order 1(the first judgment) and the respondent of the attachment order 2(the Supreme Court’s judgment and the respondent of the attachment order 1 and 2) (the first and second judgment)

Lee Young-young, Shin Pung-hee, Kim Shin, Mank-il, Park Jae-chul, Park Jin, and Haak (Public trial)

Attorney Lee Dong-ju (Presiding Justice for all the defendants)

1. Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Da857, 2012 Gohap909 (Joint) and 2012 Jeon high-ranking35 (Joint) decided May 2, 2013, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Dahap116, 2013 Jeon high-ranking3 (Joint) decided May 30, 2013

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years, by imprisonment for 12 years and by imprisonment for 2 months with prison labor for the crimes of No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as well as for the crimes of No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court of second instance.

Information on the Defendants shall be disclosed and notified for a period of ten years (Provided, That the summary of a sexual crime shall be limited to the crimes No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to Defendant 1, to Defendant 2, and to the crimes No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance and to the crimes No. 1 in the

An order to attach an electronic tracking device to one person subject to an attachment order for ten years, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device to Defendant 2 for twenty years.

Matters to be observed in accordance with the attached Form shall be imposed on the persons requested to attach an attachment order.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (the first instance judgment against the court below)

(1) Unjustifiable sentencing

The sentence (10 years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant 1") is too unreasonable.

She An order of disclosure or disclosure and unjust order

Since the disclosure order and notification order are obviously disadvantageous to Defendant 1, the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant 1 to the disclosure order and notification order by deeming the crime of Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was committed before the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was enforced as a sexual crime subject to registration

【Disorder to Order Electronic Monitoring Devices

It is unreasonable that the first instance court ordered Defendant 1 to attach an electronic tracking device to Defendant 1, although there is no recidivism or risk of recidivism of sexual crime.

B. Defendant 2 (Law No. 1 and 2)

(1) On the judgment of the court below

㈎ 사실오인

Although Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) was not involved in the crime as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant 2 guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

㈏ 공개명령·고지명령 부당

Since the disclosure order and notification order are obviously disadvantageous to Defendant 2, the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant 2 to the disclosure order and notification order by deeming the crime of Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was committed before the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, as a sexual crime subject to registration,

㈐ 양형부당

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant 2 (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the judgment of the court below

㈎ 사실오인 내지 법리오해

Defendant 2, while trying to rape a victim at the time of committing the crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the second instance, in light of the victim’s face by hand, etc., and suspended rape. Although the crime was discontinued by a person without any particular reason, it constitutes an attempted abandonment, the judgment of the second instance is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

㈏ 양형부당

The punishment sentenced by the second court to Defendant 2 (7 years of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

㈐ 위치추적 전자장치 부착명령 및 준수사항 부과 부당

In addition, Defendant 2 did not commit a sexual crime more than twice, and it is unreasonable for the second instance court to order Defendant 2 to attach an electronic tracking device to the location of Defendant 2 and to impose matters to be observed despite the absence of the recidivism of a sexual crime or the risk of recidivism.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Part of the defendant's case

(1) As to Defendant 1 (as to the judgment of the first instance)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced on April 14, 2006 to one year and six months in prison due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (thief) by the Seoul Northern District Court on April 14, 2006 and became final and conclusive on the 22th of the same month (hereinafter “the first final and conclusive judgment”), and ② on March 27, 2009, the Seoul High Court sentenced three years of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and became final and conclusive on April 4, 209

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance was committed before each of the above final and conclusive judgments became final and conclusive, and the relationship between each of the above final and conclusive judgments and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be sentenced to punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance in consideration of equity in the case where each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and each of the above final and conclusive judgments are concurrently adjudicated (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). Nevertheless, the court of first instance determined that only the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance and the first final and conclusive judgment are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal

Sheet Defendant 2 (with respect to the first and second original judgment)

㈎ 당심에서의 사건병합

This Court has decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the offense of the court of second instance against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part concerning the offense of first instance among the judgment of the court of first and that of the judgment of the court of second instance as to the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be exempted from all reversal.

㈏ 법령적용의 오류

The second instance court applied only Article 330 of the Criminal Act to Defendant 2’s crime of larceny at night (the second instance judgment’s crime of larceny) and omitted application of Article 342 of the Criminal Act.

㈐ 증거능력 없는 증거에 의한 사실인정

① Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is admissible as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused. Therefore, even if the protocol of interrogation prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor for the co-defendant in relation to the accused or accomplice is recognized as genuine by the court statement of the co-defendant, the admissibility of the protocol is denied if the accused denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10139, Jan. 28, 20

The protocol of interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer against Defendant 1, who is a co-defendant with Defendant 2, is admissible if the contents of the protocol are denied on the trial date, even if the authenticity of the protocol is acknowledged by Defendant 1’s testimony, the protocol of interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer against Defendant 1, who is a co-defendant with Defendant 2, is admissible. However, the court below adopted the protocol of interrogation of the police against Defendant 1, which is inadmissible as evidence, based on the fact that Defendant 1’s authenticity was recognized by Defendant 1’s legal statement, and recognized the protocol of interrogation of the police against Defendant 1 as evidence and “the fact that Defendant 1 reversed the first statement during the process of interrogation of the police following the arrest, and that Defendant

② In addition, the co-defendant, who is an accomplice, is in the position of the defendant in the pertinent litigation procedure, and thus cannot be a witness as to the facts charged against other co-defendants (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3300, Jun. 26, 2008, etc.). While the first instance court did not separate pleadings, the first instance court examined Defendant 1 as a witness on the facts charged against Defendant 2, and found the “legal statement of Defendant 1” in that judgment to be the summary of the evidence.

㈑ 다만, 위와 같은 직권파기사유가 있음에도 피고인 2의 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장은 여전히 이 법원의 심판대상이 되므로 이에 대하여 살펴본다.

B. The part on the case of the attachment order

Article 9(5) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders provides that a judgment on the case of a request for attachment order shall be sentenced simultaneously with the judgment on the specific crime case. Since each of the original decisions is reversed by illegality, the judgment on each of the original decisions is also reversed, and the case of request for attachment order which must be tried and sentenced simultaneously with the judgment cannot be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do453, Apr. 14, 201).

3. Determination as to the Defendants’ unjust assertion of disclosure or notification order among the judgment of the court of first instance

Article 37 and Article 38 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes enacted and promulgated by Act No. 10258 on April 15, 2010 provide for an order to disclose personal information. Articles 41 and 42 of the same Act provide for an order to disclose personal information, and Article 1 of the Addenda provides that "this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation: Provided, That Articles 32 through 42 and 43 (1) and (3) shall enter into force on the date one year has passed after its promulgation," and Article 2 (2) of the Addenda provides that "Articles 37, 38, 41 and 42 shall apply to cases of the application of the disclosure and notification of personal information for the first time after the enforcement of Articles 37, 38, 41 and 42."

As can be seen, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes stipulates the timing for the implementation of the system with respect to the disclosure order and notification order system of personal information, and there is no restriction differently from the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which provides for the exception to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Children and Juveniles against whom the provision regarding the disclosure order and notification order system is enforced. The introduction of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure order and notification order of personal information to sex offenders subject to adults is not only high rate of recidivism but also prevents sex offenders against children. Thus, the legislative intent of disclosing personal information to prevent sex offenders subject to adults as well as sex offenses against children and juveniles, unlike punishment for reporting sex offenders, the system of issuing the disclosure order and notification order of personal information should also be deemed to have been carried out prior to the enforcement of Article 32(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 32(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Personal Information).

However, the Defendants’ crime described in paragraph (2) of the first instance judgment constitutes a sexual crime subject to registration under Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which is subject to an order to disclose and notify information as prescribed in Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act, and thus, even if the Defendants were indicted for a violation of the same Act before April 16, 201, which is the enforcement date of the provisions under Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act, such crime shall be deemed subject to an order to disclose and notify personal information pursuant to Article 2(2) of the same Addenda.

Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion on different premise is without merit.

4. Determination on Defendant 1’s unjust assertion on the attachment order

The first instance court ordered Defendant 1 to attach an electronic tracking device to Defendant 1 on the ground that Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and committed sexual crimes within 10 years after the execution of the sentence was completed and that Defendant 1 was in danger of recidivism, and imposed the same compliance with the attached list

In the above judgment of the court below, it is recognized that Defendant 1’s recidivism risk assessment degree (KSORAS) applied to Defendant 1 is at least 10 points, and that Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, environment, and the content of the sexual assault crime in this case is likely to recommite a sexual crime (Article 5(1)1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. against Specific Criminal Offenders does not require “the recidivism of a sexual crime”). Thus, the judgment of the court below ordering Defendant 1 to attach a location tracking device to Defendant 1 and imposing the same obligation as the attached Form is reasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant 1's assertion is without merit.

5. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 2

A. Judgment of the court below on the first instance judgment

Defendant 2 also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected Defendant 2’s above assertion on the following grounds: (a) Defendant 2’s assertion and its decision in detail under the title of “judgment on the argument between the defendant and his defense counsel” in the written judgment.

The judgment of the court below of first instance is just and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant 2, if the remaining part of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance and this court (including the statement in the trial court of the witness 1, but excluding the "police suspect examination protocol against the defendant 1" and the "legal statement of the witness 1" are closely examined in comparison with the court of first instance and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance pursuant to the "police suspect examination protocol against the defendant 1" in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Judgment of the court below on Article 2

(1) On the part of the defendant case

When the commission of a crime is suspended according to his own free will before the commission of the crime is commenced and the suspension is not attributable to the circumstances that obstruct the completion of the crime under the general social norms, the attempted suspension shall be applicable.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court, the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime of paragraph (1) of the second instance judgment, tried to insert the sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sound, but failed to commit any more of the crimes in which the sexual organ was not inserted into the part of the victim’s sound, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 was suspended on the ground that there was a circumstance that impedes the completion of the crime by social norms rather than by Defendant 2’s free will.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below in this part is just, and the other defendant 2's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

d. Part of the case of attachment order

The second instance court acknowledged that Defendant 2 committed a sexual crime of the same kind of law more than twice, and imposed the same matters to be observed as indicated in the separate sheet, on the ground that Defendant 2 committed a sexual crime against a person under 12 years of age and 19 years of age on the ground that he/she committed a sexual crime against a person under 12 years of age, and thus, he/she was at risk of recidivism of a sexual crime.

The above judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following: (a) Defendant 2’s risk of recidivism at 13-14 points in view of Defendant 2’s age, character and behavior, environment, the frequency, content, perception and attitude of each of the crimes of sexual assault in this case, etc.; and (b) Defendant 2’s risk of recidivism is recognized; and (c) Defendant 2’s risk of recidivism and recidivism are recognized. Thus, the judgment of the court below ordering Defendant 2 to attach an electronic tracking device to Defendant 2; and (d) imposing the same matters to be observed as the attached Form.

Therefore, this part of the defendant 2's assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is also reversed and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

The facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the facts constituting the cause of the attachment order are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except where the judgment of the court of first instance acknowledges the "Yanyang prison" in the column for the cause of the attachment order as the "Sanbuk North Korean Prison" as the "San North Korean Prison."

[Defendant 1]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1;

1. Statement of the police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A report on damage from Nonindicted 2’s preparation

1. Investigation report (to hear victim Nonindicted Party 1’s telephone statement), each investigation report (to hear victim Nonindicted Party 2’s telephone statement), and investigation report (to inquire about suspect’s wife and details of health insurance benefit);

1. The current status of persons who coincide with the results of the DDA comparison;

1. Correspondence with the results of genetic search and response to requests for appraisal;

1. The point of criminal records: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to a copy of the judgment), judgments (Seoul High Court 2008No3257, Chuncheon District Court 2008No74), and records of case search;

1. The risk of recidivism and recidivism of a sexual crime as indicated in the judgment: (a) Defendant 1, as seen in the above evidence, and the response to a request prior to the occurrence of the attachment order, is acknowledged as having committed the crime of this case again despite having been sentenced to the punishment for committing rape on the opportunity of larceny; (b) Defendant 1’s risk of recidivism as a result of the application of the Korean evaluation of recidivism risk of a sex offender to Defendant 1 (KSOAS); and (c) Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, environment, frequency, content, awareness and attitude of Defendant 1’s sex, etc. are recognized, comprehensively taking account of the following factors:

[Defendant 2]

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1, and a protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 2 (Articles 2 and 3);

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning Defendant 1;

1. Statement of the police statement of the victim Nonindicted 3 and the written statement of Nonindicted 4

1. Report on the initial measures against the larceny case and investigation report (related to response to the results of DNA appraisal by the defendant 2 against the detained suspect);

1. Requests for appraisal, reports on requests for investigation cooperation, and replies;

1. Criminal records and investigation reports (a fixed date of judgment and a certified copy of judgment shall be attached);

1. The risk of recidivism and the recidivism of sexual crime in the judgment: the above paragraph 3(b) of the above paragraph 3 of this Article is recognized as the recidivism of sexual crime and the risk of recidivism with respect to Defendant 2 as described above.

[Defendant 1]

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

- Articles 342, 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the charge of attempted special robbery) - Selection of limited imprisonment [However, the upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor prescribed in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act];

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 5 (2) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”); Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 5 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes”); Article 342, 334 (2) and (1); Article 333 of the Criminal Act; Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1515, Apr. 15, 205 of the Criminal Act)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act and the proviso of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act [Inasmuch as there is a previous criminal record of a violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. Handling and mitigation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 latter part of Article 37, Articles 39(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( considered equity in cases where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with each crime of the first and second final judgment and the second final judgment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, Protection of Victims Thereof, etc. (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.]

1. An order for disclosure;

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 37(1)1 of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. An order to notify;

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11162, Mar. 16, 2012); Article 41(1)1 of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11162, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. Issuing an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

Article 5(1)1 and Article 9-2(1)1 and 4 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

[Defendant 2]

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

- Articles 342, 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the charge of attempted special robbery) - Selection of limited imprisonment [However, the upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor prescribed in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act];

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 5 (2) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes"); Article 342, 334 (2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act; Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 5 (10) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 5 (2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes)

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”); Article 12 and Article 5(2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes”); Articles 342, 334(2) and (1), and 33 of the Criminal Act; Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 5(1) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 501 of the Criminal Act)

- Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act (a person who has attempted to larceny at night)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Crime of Misappropriation of Special Theft in Sales)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (the former part of Article 39 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of Crimes and Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) committed on September 15, 2005) of the Criminal Act

1. An order for disclosure;

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 37(1)1 of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. An order to notify;

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11162, Mar. 16, 2012); Article 41(1)1 of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11162, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. Issuing an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

Article 5(1)3 and 4, and Article 9-2(1)1 and 4 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

[Defendant 1]

The crimes of this case (the crime of this case in the judgment of the court below) committed each of the crimes of this case (the crime of this case was committed in the judgment of the court below) since the defendants conspired in advance after the defendants conspired, and attempted to robbery by threatening damaged women with lethal weapons, or by threatening damaged women with lethal weapons. Defendant 1 committed each of the crimes of this case against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on February 4, 2004 to one year and six months for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was committed on April 24, 2005, and committed each of the crimes of this case from the time when the execution of the sentence was not completed, which was very significant, and the fact that the victims did not recover

On the other hand, the fact that special robbery is committed in attempted crimes, and that Defendant 1's mistake is remarkably divided in depth after the latter is favorable to Defendant 1.

In addition to the above circumstances and comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crimes, especially the facts that each of the instant crimes constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment as ordered shall be

[Defendant 2]

The crimes of this case (the crimes in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2) committed each of the crimes of this case (the crimes in the judgment of the court below) committed an attempted robbery by threatening the victimized female with a deadly weapon after the Defendants conspired in advance, and attempted to commit robbery by threatening him with a deadly weapon, or by threatening the victimized female with a deadly weapon, and Defendant 2 attempted to commit robbery by threatening the victim of 12 years old age age by threatening him with a deadly weapon at night, or attempted to commit robbery by threatening him with a deadly weapon. The crimes committed by the victim of this case (the crimes in the judgment of the court below No. 1 and No. 2) committed an intrusion upon his residence at night, and attempted to commit robbery, or attempted to commit robbery by threatening him with a deadly weapon. In light of the contents, frequency, target and method

On the other hand, Defendant 2’s degree of participation in the crime committed with Defendant 1 is relatively weak, and the fact that robbery and rape did not reach the number in the crime committed independently is favorable to Defendant 2.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the above circumstances and the following circumstances, Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, circumstances after committing the instant crimes, and some of the instant crimes are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined as per Disposition.

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive due to the criminal facts of the defendant's case subject to registration (as to the defendant 1, the crime No. 2, the crime No. 2, and the crime No. 1, the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the defendant 2), the defendants are subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (as to April 15, 2010) and Article 32 (1) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 1156, Dec. 18, 2012), Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (as to the defendant 1, Dec. 18, 2012), and Article 43 (1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

[Attachment]

Judges Min You-sook (Presiding Judge)