The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Information and Communications Network.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the defendant was suffering from mental illness such as depression at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case, and the punishment (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program, and 7 years of information disclosure notification) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

The appeal was filed for the consolidation of the prosecutor's attachment order claims.

(In the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor or the petition of appeal, the grounds for appeal are not indicated in the grounds for appeal. The judgment of the court below became impossible to be maintained in this respect, since the prosecutor’s ex officio judgment request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the defendant, and this court decided to jointly examine the defendant’s case and the application for an attachment order, and the application for an attachment order should be tried together with the defendant’s case and sentenced simultaneously (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do453, Apr. 14, 2011).

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

According to the fact-finding inquiry reply to the K Hospital president of this court regarding the defendant's claim of mental retardation, the defendant was diagnosed by the coercion disorder, etc. at K Hospital around May 23, 2006, and the fact that the defendant received outpatient treatment at the above hospital over 22 times in total from May 19, 2006 to September 26, 201.

However, according to the mental appraisal of the defendant by the Director of the Public Medical Treatment and Custody Office submitted to this court, the present mental state of the defendant does not seem to have a serious mental disorder diagnosis, and it is recognized that the defendant was presumed to have been in the same state as the present mental state even at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

In addition, the contents of each of the crimes in this case, the act of the defendant before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.