beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the main sentence of the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant and the person for whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. The part of the defendant's case seems to be against the defendant without dispute over the facts charged in this case, and the extent of the indecent act in this case is not serious, and the defendant's relatively old is relatively old. However, the crime in this case is an indecent act against the victim with intellectual disability in bus terminal toilets, which is a place where the defendant's intellectual disorder is located, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the crime and its contents, and the defendant committed the crime in this case when he was committed again during the period of repeated crime and location tracking device attachment due to sexual assault, the defendant was not able to use it from the victim, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the recommended sentencing guidelines as shown in the argument in this case, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable compared to the degree of the defendant's responsibility. Thus, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.
B. The part of the case pertaining to the attachment order is deemed to have filed an appeal against the case pertaining to the attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders inasmuch as the Defendant filed an appeal against the case pertaining to the case pertaining to the attachment order. However, there are no grounds for reversal ex officio as to the grounds for appeal or appeal by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel.
3. According to the conclusion of the judgment, the appeal by the defendant is without merit, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and probation against a specific criminal.