beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentencing of the court below (the sentencing of the defendant and the requester for the attachment order (the sentencing of the court below) is improper because the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (the order to complete sexual assault treatment programs with 6 years and 80 hours) are excessively unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s improper sentencing on the Defendant’s case is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2) It is unreasonable to dismiss the request for the instant attachment order even though the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are likely to recommit a sexual crime, as to the case of the request for attachment order.
2. Determination
A. The sentencing of sentencing on the criminal defendant and prosecutor's wrongful assertion of sentencing on the defendant's case is based on the statutory penalty, based on a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation on sentencing in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and direct care.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, such as the Defendant is against the offense, and the Defendant is a first offender who has no criminal history.