beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, both the appeal filed by the person subject to attachment order, the person subject to probation order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that: (a) the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable on the grounds that the sentencing of the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested, the person against whom the probation order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the person against whom the probation order was requested; and (b) the risk assessment of the sexual offender against whom the attachment order was unfair Korea, as a result, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is in danger of re-offending; (c) the Defendant has a plan to actively endeavor to prevent re-offending, such as receiving a mental and medical treatment after release; and (d) the Defendant appears to have an effect to prevent the Defendant from repeating the crime; and (e) the lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years to the Defendant is unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is inevitable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, at the 2nd time of the new wall, removed and intruded into the place of residence, and abused the victim’s house several times before the instant crime was committed; and (b) the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the details of the instant crime and the circumstances before the crime, and (c) the Defendant appears to have received serious fear, sexual humiliation, and mental shock to the extent that it is difficult for the victim to recover easily; and (d) the Defendant’s strict punishment against the Defendant is inevitable.
However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and it appears that he repented and reflected the mistake, that the victim did not want the punishment for the defendant, that the family members of the defendant want to have the preference against the defendant, that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and that it is difficult to view that the sentencing of the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.