beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below's scope of trial was found guilty on the part of the defendant's case, the judgment accepting the prosecutor's request on the part of the medical treatment and custody case, and the judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request on the part of the case of the attachment order, and the defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter "defendant") filed an appeal only on the part of the case of the attachment order, and therefore, the part of the case of the attachment order is not beneficial to appeal, and therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. It is recognized that the part of the defendant's case committed the crime of this case under the circumstance that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disability, and that the crime of this case was committed in attempted crimes.
However, the crime of this case is attempted to capture the defendant for the purpose of committing an indecent act against the victim of 12 years of age. In light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy.
In addition, the victims and their families appear to have suffered a considerable mental impulse, and they want to make a strict punishment against the defendant.
Until now, the victims have not been recovered from damage.
The Defendant committed an indecent act against a female under the age of 6 to 7, and was subject to juvenile protective disposition twice.
Taking account of all the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable to the extent that it is deemed that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is accepted.