Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below by the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Part of the Defendant’s case: The sentence of the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable. Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are limited to the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order

(2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order by a prosecutor, even though the risk of recidivism is high, is also unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant, as a taxi driver, embezzled the property of the passengers or embezzled the property of the passengers on 13 occasions over a period not exceeding one year and seven months (two times of theft and embezzlement and 11 times of embezzlement). Of these, the Defendant, while committing an indecent act against the female passengers under the influence of alcohol, took the body of the passengers in mobile phone cameras.

Each of the crimes of this case is very bad in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the period and frequency of the crime, the details and details of the crime, and the method of the crime.

The victims seem to have suffered considerable pain due to each of the crimes of this case.

On September 19, 2001, the Seoul High Court sentenced the defendant to six years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) in Seoul High Court. On October 1, 2007, there are many criminal records including imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant's mistake is against himself, and the defendant did not commit any more serious crime, and in addition, the defendant's family has made efforts to recover damage under difficult circumstances, including the sexual crime victim in the judgment of the court below.