beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (a four years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) imposed by the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the part of the case by Defendant, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared to the lower court, and even if all the sentencing grounds on the argument of the instant case were to be comprehensively taken into account, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or too low, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not appear.
The argument that the sentencing of each of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.
B. As long as a prosecutor partly filed an appeal against the Defendant case, it is deemed that an appeal has been filed against the original dismissal ruling regarding the part of the claim for attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. However, there is no petition of appeal or the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no reason to reverse this part ex officio.
3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, Etc., and it is so decided as per Disposition.