The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months and by a fine of thirty million won.

The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part on the Defendant’s case and the part on the case on which the attachment order was requested.

Notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal regarding the part of the claim for attachment order as the defendant appealed only, this part shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no fact that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim at the time of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (rape, etc.) in the judgment of the court below.

The Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc. and damage, etc.) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant, at the time of the accident, has a huge amount of 2 to 3 times the sunlight of the victim

However, the enormous amount used by the Defendant is merely onem in length and one point fivem in thickness, and thus cannot be deemed to constitute “hazardous objects.”

At the time of committing each of the instant crimes with mental disorder, the Defendant was physically and mentally disabled at the time of committing a crime in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the defendant by an unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant also asserted that there was a mistake of facts concerning the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse as stated in the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the allegation in detail on the three to four grounds of appeal.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant is the defendant.