Defendant

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

Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) did not commit the instant crime, misunderstanding the gist of the grounds for appeal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

It is unfair that the sentence of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on the part of the instant case, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant was similar to the grounds for appeal.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the record, the court below can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant rejected the above argument and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

All four victims of the crime of this case were presented by the investigative agency with a photograph of several heads and were commonly identified as the offender by reporting the photograph of the defendant. The process of presenting the photograph of the defendant in the investigative agency violates the criminal identification procedure by presentation of photograph.

It does not appear.

The victim D and H selected the defendant's face as a criminal offender by directly reporting the defendant's face even before the court of the court below. Although the victims are juveniles, they can be distinguished from middle school students or more, and the victim's face could have been sufficiently confirmed due to a short time. Therefore, there is no particular circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement made by the victim as the criminal offender.

The Defendant was in the state of attaching the location tracking electronic device, and the Defendant was passing through the place of the instant crime at the time of committing the instant crime under the location tracking electronic device, and was found to have similar to the Defendant’s image when considering the CCTV images stamped the offender’s form. The police is similar after the instant crime.