beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the defendant's case and on the part of the case of probation order claim, where the defendant and the requester for probation order (hereinafter "defendant") are placed on probation, and rendered a judgment of dismissing the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the request for attachment order. Since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal as to the part of the request for attachment order.
Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's case and the part of the case of probation order, and the part of the case of request for attachment order is excluded.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s improper order to restrict employment to the Defendant for 7 years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for disabled persons is unreasonable.
C. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation for three years, although there is no risk of recidivism of sexual crimes against the defendant who was improper to issue a probation
3. Determination
A. It is recognized that the defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing was just at the trial, and later recognized all the crimes of this case as well as his mistake, and divided and rebuttals his mistake, the defendant has no criminal records punished in excess of the same kind of crime or suspended execution, the defendant's legal representative submitted a written agreement and the withdrawal of complaint to an investigation agency to the effect that he does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the victim's words, mother, her mother, and her mother want to have the right against the defendant.
However, the crime of this case is about 10 years of age in the position that the defendant was living together for about 4 years in the past and must be actually protected.