beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and three years of probation, etc.) is too unreasonable;
2. The judgment of the defendant and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “the defendant”) made the victim engage in non-performance of duty by informing the victim of the fact that the victim was sexually related to the victim and reporting the victim as sexual traffic. ② The victim threatened the victim to engage in non-performance of duty. ② The victim raped the victim four times by threatening the victim as if the victim did not hear his/her speech, and sexual intercourse with the victim. The specific content of rape is also bad.
Although the court below denied the crime of rape among the crimes of this case in this court, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and divided his mistake, and there is a circumstance that the defendant must support his family and suffers from the heart disease.
However, the Defendant had a record of being punished for committing the act of buying child or juvenile sex, and each of the crimes in this case was committed by the victim 19 years old at the time of the occurrence of a considerable mental impulse, failed to receive a letter from the victim, and did not recover the victim's damage.
In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable when comprehensively considering the following: (a) all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, career, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime; (b) the circumstances after the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime; and (d) the equity when the Defendant was tried at the same time as the crime finalized pursuant to Articles 37 (latter part) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.
(A) The offense in the final case is the fraud, and the principal offense of the instant case is rape, so it is difficult to see that the lower court’s punishment is heavy considering the aforementioned circumstances at the time of sentencing taking account of equity into account. Moreover, the number of cases as stated in the lower judgment