Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the instant crime, and thereby, contradicts his mistake.

The defendant agreed with the victim FF, and the above victim does not want to punish the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed soup and soup indecent acts against the victims who were locked on several occasions, and raised funds to escape by instigating others in order to avoid tracking by investigation agencies, and received an investigation by the police due to not paying taxi expenses or others, and prevented them from committing crimes, such as forging private documents, while driving in the police.

The defendant did not receive a letter from the victims except the victim F, and the victims were punished for the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, etc., it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too excessive and unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal against the Defendant’s case, it is deemed that the Defendant filed an appeal against the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc.

However, the defendant did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, and even after examining the judgment of the court below, there is no reason to investigate and reverse this part ex officio.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Devices.