beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against J, and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against J, and acquitted of the charge of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against C, D, and E on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
While the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion among the Defendant cases, the prosecutor appealed only on the part of innocence in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against D and E. The part on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against C concerning the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall be excluded from the scope of
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), did not commit an indecent act against G, H, and J, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges by misunderstanding the facts and finding the Defendant guilty of the charges. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
3) In light of the criminal history and content of the case requesting attachment order, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to an attachment order of an electronic tracking device although the Defendant did not pose a risk of repeating a crime, which is improper. B. 1) The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the case of “2013 high-scale344.”
The lower court determined that the facts charged against D and E are not guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, or by mismisunderstanding facts. As such, the statement was made under specific and external circumstances that guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the statement, and thus, the statement made to H and D court or investigation agency was admissible.