beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for five years, and Defendant B for three years, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Inasmuch as the risk of recidivism is recognized in light of the details of the crime committed by the prosecutor (as to the part regarding the attachment order case), it is unreasonable to dismiss the person who requested the attachment order from the location tracking device attachment order.
B. The Defendants’ punishment (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years, confiscation, disclosure notice for 10 years, orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 200 hours, Defendant B’s imprisonment for 6 years and 5 years, notification of disclosure of information for 80 hours, orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 80 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court: (i) there is no record of criminal punishment against the person who requested the attachment order against A; (ii) the method of evaluating the risk of recidivism by 13 points in total as a result of the evaluation of the risk of sexual offenders in Korea against A who requested the attachment order; (iii) the method of assessing the risk of recidivism by 17 points in total as a result of the evaluation of the risk of sexual crimes in Korea against A who requested the attachment order; (iv) but is close to the boundary of “serious (13 points)” (17 points in total as a result of the application of the attachment order by a prosecutor; and (v) the degree of risk of recidivism by 10 points in total as a result of the evaluation of the risk of sexual crimes in Korea against A who requested the attachment order; (v) the method of assessing the risk of recidivism by the person who requested the attachment order to whom the attachment order was issued falls under “serious (16)” of the sex offender attachment order by taking account of the following factors:
It is difficult to conclude that it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device was dismissed for the applicant for the attachment order.
We affirm the above judgment of the court below by comparing it with records.