The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
For the defendant 40 hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant does not have any fact that the Defendant issued a Meartamtopule (hereinafter “philopon”) to D.
B. The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (a punishment for three years of imprisonment, 40 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
A. The Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning.
The court below's finding guilty of this part of the facts charged and consistently states the fact that D had repeatedly received phiphones from the defendant in the court of the trial (D is not aware that it was a phiphones in the vindication for the crime of administering its medication, but it is difficult to see all of the statements about the specific situation at the time of delivery as well as the statements about the specific situation at the time of delivery). In addition to the records of the currency between the defendant and D and the location of the base (Evidence No. 92 page of the evidence record), and the time of the defendant's use of the communication media obscene crime against D, the judgment of the court below is just and without merit. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. On the argument of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is deemed to be unfair since the defendant's previous convictions, including the previous convictions, and the defendant's previous convictions from about 20 times, are recognized as having minor criminal records, but the degree of assaults is deemed to have reached an agreement with the victim G, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various circumstances, which form the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments in this case, are considered to be unfair, since the judgment of the court below is justified.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reasonable in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.