beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) administered a merpter (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) at the time of the original judgment, at the time when the commission of rape as stated in paragraphs (2) and (4) of the crime was committed, and were in a state of mental disorder.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by failing to apply Article 10 of the Criminal Act to this point, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
C. The Defendant, in violation of an order to disclose personal information and an attachment order, made efforts to agree with the victims of each rape, and there is no risk of recommitting a sexual crime except for the instant case, such as the absence of criminal records of the same kind of sexual assault.
Therefore, it is unfair that the court below ordered the defendant 10 years of notice of disclosure of personal information and 10 years of attachment of an electronic tracking device.
2. Determination
A. Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (excluding a crime under Article 2(1)1 of the Act) provides that “When a sexual crime (excluding a crime under Article 2(1)1 of the Act) is committed in the state of mental or physical disorder caused by drinking or drug, Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 11 of the Criminal Act may not apply to the part of
However, each of the rapes in this case constitutes sexual crimes stipulated in Article 2(1)3 of the above Act.
Therefore, even if the defendant was in a state of mental disorder by administering philophones at the time of rape in the instant case, it does not necessarily have to be punished for the defendant's act pursuant to Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, nor have the punishment for the defendant mitigated. Therefore, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
Dor. The argument on unreasonable sentencing.