beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The sentence (limited to six years of imprisonment) imposed by the first instance court on the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) shall be too unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that there are favorable factors for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his own crime and thereby is against his own will, that there is no history of criminal punishment, and that there is no history of committing sexual crimes, and that he suffers from euthanasia, etc., other than the punishment sentenced twice by a fine for fraud, around 2012.
However, the Defendant: (a) induced the disabled victim as the house of the Defendant to commit rape three times; and (b) detained the victim who wants to come up with the house of the Defendant by threatening him with a knife, a deadly weapon, so as not to get the house of the Defendant; (c) on March 12, 2012, the Changwon District Court rendered a decision to send the victim to a short-term juvenile reformatory by violating the Probation, etc. Act, on August 31, 2012, issued a temporary release from the juvenile reformatory on temporary release from the juvenile reformatory to the juvenile reformatory on temporary release from the juvenile reformatory, and without making efforts to improve his personality and behavior, which is highly likely to be criticized for committing the instant crime; and (d) the victim suffered a serious mental or physical damage due to the instant crime, which has not yet been used by the victim.
In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed to be adequate, and is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. According to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment on the specific crime case.