beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order are dismissed.
Reasons
The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the Defendant, regarding the part regarding which the request for the attachment order was sought, and regarding the part regarding the case regarding which the request for the attachment order was sought, and the prosecutor’s request for the attachment order was dismissed. As the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part regarding the request for the attachment order
Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for protection observation order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.
Although there is a fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal or by misapprehending the legal principles, there is a fact that the Defendant was fluoring with the chest and fluor of the victim E, it is by agreement. There is only assaulting the victim and assaulting the victim with the intent of forced indecent act, not by assaulting the victim with the intent of forced indecent act. The victim was not injured by assault by the defendant.
Although the defendant paid 50,00 won to the victim H by concluding an agreement with the victim's sexual traffic, only the victim committed an assault to return money to the victim's refusal of sexual intercourse, not an assault with the intent of rape.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion under the title “as to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment,” which stated in the 6-8 side of the judgment below that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part of the judgment on the part of the case.” The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of the case.