Defendant

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

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) committed an attempted rape in the part of the case against the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this part; and

The violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Public Crows and mental or physical weakness) provides that the Defendant gets aboard the bus on the date and time stated in this part of the facts charged and gets the victim a horse on the side of the relevant victim. However, the Defendant merely requested that the bus scambling at the time was under the influence of alcohol so that it may be broken down because the bus scam is at the time, and that at the time, the bus scamed by the Defendant and the victim scam on the side of the victim’s arms, without scambling it. However, there is no intention that the Defendant scam the victim’s body or scambling it.

In addition, one victim arrived at the destination.

Notifications shall be audited.

Ethy summary:

The phrase “,” and there is no such statement as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time so that he was unable to discern things or make decisions.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s part of the claim for attachment order is likely to repeat the crime.

It is unreasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device to the defendant who is difficult to see.

Even if the lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device is justifiable, from 23:00 to 06.00 on the following day during the period of electronic device attachment.