beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the defendant, and ordered the attachment of location tracking devices and imposition of compliance rules with respect to the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed, and ordered the prosecutor to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim regarding the part regarding which the request for protection order was filed
In this regard, since only the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) have lodged an appeal against this, the part of the judgment below regarding the claim for the protective observation order among the judgment below does not have any interest in appeal, and thus, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part regarding the claim for the protective observation order among the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the defendant's case and the attachment order claim.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) on the part of the Defendant case is too unreasonable.
B. In the case of a request for attachment order, the Defendant committed the instant crime while under the influence of alcohol, and is likely to recommit a sexual crime on the ground that he/she will be subject to drinking, mental and medical treatment in the future.
It is difficult to conclude that the court below issued an attachment order to the defendant.
3. Determination
A. The part of the case against the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is in profoundly against the defendant, and it is recognized that the damaged person does not want the punishment of the defendant by the original agreement with the victim.
However, the crime of this case was committed as if the defendant asks the victim under the age of 19 who works in the wedding place, and committed an indecent act by drinking the victim's chest, and it is not good in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime. The defendant work in the wedding place in the same way prior to the crime of this case.