beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
The court below ruled that the accused case is guilty and that the prosecutor's request for attachment order is accepted, and that the prosecutor's request for probation order is dismissed.
On the other hand, only the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the defendant's case and the case of the attachment order.
Notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), probation order requests are excluded from the scope of judgment of this court as there is no benefit in appeal to the defendant, and only the case of the defendant and the case of request for attachment order are subject to the scope of judgment.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
It is too unfair for the court below to set the period of 10 years for ordering the defendant to disclose and notify the information, to notify the defendant, to restrict employment, and to attach an electronic tracking device.
Judgment
As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant is able to repent with the confession of the instant crime.
This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.
The instant crime committed an indecent act by assault or threat of force against the victims under the age of 13 who were playing in the playground. The indecent act in this case leads the victims to feel a considerable sense of sexual humiliation, as it leads the victims to feel a sense of sexual humiliation, such as inducing the victims to talk with one of the victims by hand, and inducing the victims to talk with the sexual organ of the Defendant. Therefore, the crime is very heavy.
The Defendant has been punished for two years and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution due to an attempted indecent act by force on minors under the age of 13 who are similar to the instant case in 2011.
The crime of this case is ageed.