beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of disclosure order, and 3 years of notification information) against the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested, and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), is unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (1) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of order to disclose, and 3 years of notice information) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
(2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order against the Defendant on the ground of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the case of applying for attachment order.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing should be seen together.
The crime of this case is committed by indecent act by compulsion of the victims (the victims of loans) who had been committed by the defendant, and the quality of the crime is not good. The victims were shocked due to the crime of this case, and the victims were punished by the defendant because the defendant did not take all measures to recover damage. The victims were arrested by indecent act by compulsion of the adult victims D, and the defendant committed the crime of indecent act by indecent act against the juvenile victims repeatedly because it has not yet been released.
However, it appears that the defendant committed the crime of this case in the form of penology and reflects on the crime of this case, the degree of tangible force or indecent act exercised by the victims is not serious, there is no record of criminal punishment due to sexual crime, and the defendant who had alcohol dependence rather than planned to commit the crime of this case seems to have committed any contingent act in the state of drinking (the defendant was hospitalized as alcohol dependence for a considerable period). Otherwise, the defendant's age, character, character and behavior.