beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case, the part of the medical treatment and custody claim and the part of the case of attachment order.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the respondent for a medical treatment and custody and the respondent for a medical treatment order as well as the respondent for a medical treatment order (hereinafter “defendant”) have attempted to rape the victim and did not intend to forcibly take property from the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the 12-year imprisonment and the 10-year disclosure notification order, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The judgment of the court below which dismissed the defendant's request for a pharmacologic order against the defendant despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. As to the claim for mistake of facts regarding the part of the defendant's case, the defendant also argued to the same effect as the above grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above claim in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" in the written judgment.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the evidence, the judgment is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
Even when considering the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental and physical disability due to obsescy, etc., and deposited KRW 15 million for the victim, the instant crime is extremely poor in the nature of the crime as the case where the defendant led the victim, who was in the reading room, to the control area of the underground parking lot in the building, attempted to take money and valuables, and rape the victim, the defendant committed the instant crime at the age of 7 years as the same crime, character and conduct, environment, and the instant crime.