Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) stated in Article 2(a) of the facts charged by the Defendant and the Defendant’s 1 obtained consent from the victim, and thus cannot be deemed as a forced indecent act, and the facts charged No. 2-B of the facts charged do not exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant case is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order, despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, is unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court acknowledged all the facts charged in the instant case.

The defendant's statement of confession that recognized all his/her criminal act after obtaining the assistance of counsel in the court may not be easily rejected unless there is an explanation by which he/she can understand the circumstances leading up to the confession.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below including the victim's specific statement in the investigative agency to the effect that the defendant suffered damage from forced indecent acts, such as the confession of the court below and the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the indecent act by force as in this part of the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the allegation of unfair sentencing by both parties

A. The sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Act on the Organization of Courts for the Determination of Sentencing (hereinafter “Sentencing Criteria”) are “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” through “the procedures prescribed by the Act” in order to realize “fair and objective sentencing in which the people trust” and “public disclosure.”