beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, both the respondent for an attachment order, the respondent for a treatment order, and the prosecutor's appeal shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order, and the respondent for a treatment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), (i) the Defendant did not receive benefits from the protection, supervision, school education, etc. of his guardian who was properly in an infinite environment from the fear of unfair sentencing; (b) mental factors, such as anti-social and personality disorder, which appear to have resulted in the instant crime; (c) the Defendant acts as one cause, such as anti-social and personality disorder, which led to the instant crime; (d) the Defendant recognized the entire criminal facts; and (e) the Defendant committed a sex offense first, it is unfair that the Defendant’s life imprisonment sentence imposed by the lower court
(2) In light of the above circumstances, the period of electronic device attachment (30 years) and the period of sexual impulse medication (5 years) declared by the court below is too prolonged and unfair.
B. In light of the suspicion of the instant crime against the child of unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant’s act of committing the instant crime, serious damage to the victim and his family members, and the Defendant’s anti-social behavior, etc., the lower court’s sentencing should be too unfeasible and unfair, and the Defendant should be punished by death penalty.
(2) The period of pharmacologic treatment, which the court below sentenced, is too short and unfair in light of the maliciousness in the crime of this case presented by the defendant of this case.
2. Facts recognized in relation to the sentencing conditions of the accused;
A. The Defendant’s family environment, growth process, and social career (1) were born from U-Namdo-gun V to 2 South Korea. The Defendant’s mother died when the Defendant is six years of age.
(2) The father of the Defendant remarriedd around March 199, and the Defendant did not have his father, shots and shots, but did not have his father, shots and shots and shots residing in the city of Naju after retirement from middle school, and worked at the factory.
(3) thereafter.