beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant, who recognized all of the instant crimes, is in conflict with each other, and is under mental and medical treatment due to shocking.
However, the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act against the three children on the birth site between 12-14 years of age where he had a way in a house, and one of the children was forced to commit an indecent act twice on October 28, 2016 from the Defendant.
In addition, most of 9-12 children have committed a public performance and obscenity crime against her children, and two children among the victims were made a different day from each other.
The crime committed by the Defendant is an act that undermines the proper sexual values and identity of victimized children; the crime repeatedly committed at a similar place to create anxiety for children and their parents in nearby residence; the crime of forced indecent act appears to be a planned crime, such as by committing an indecent act against the victims and getting out of the bicycle; and three sexual crimes are additionally committed even after the Defendant was prosecuted for committing a crime of obscene performance as indicated in the judgment.
Prior to the instant case, the Defendant was subject to juvenile protective disposition on the charge that he had committed an indecent act by showing his sexual organ and rhymizing his hair against young children (V, 10 years old) in an apartment elevator.
Although the victims seem to have suffered considerable mental pain due to the defendant's crime, the defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage until now, and did not receive a letter from the victims.
In addition to the above specific circumstances, the age, sex and environment of the defendant, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case, and the Supreme Court.