beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, both the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were not aware of the fact that the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were the victim’s age from 20 to 21 at the time of committing the instant crime.
Shebly, the Defendants were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and they were in the state of mental disability.
Referencely, the sentencing of the court below (the sentencing of the defendant A: 9 years of imprisonment, the defendant B: 7 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable to dismiss a prosecutor’s request for an attachment order against the Defendants even though the Defendants committed a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19, and despite the risk of repeating a sexual crime.
2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case
A. The Defendants asserted that the determination of mistake of fact is identical to the assertion of the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts in the instant case, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment are justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Defendants.
The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.
B. In light of the records, even though the defendants were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the defendants' behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendants did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case, so the defendants' assertion of mental and physical disability is rejected.
C. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and reflect it, and the Defendants did not have the same criminal record.