beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for an attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) were physically and mentally weak at the time of each of the instant crimes, due to the side effects of the exemption from water (stroke) and the long-term clothes (stroke).
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (12 years of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
3) It is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to disclose and notify personal information for a period of 10 years although there are special circumstances that the defendant should not disclose or notify personal information.
4) There is a habit of a sexual crime against a criminal defendant who has committed an unlawful attachment order.
Although it is difficult to see that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years, it is unreasonable to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too unhued and unfair.
2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of 10 years, which is unreasonable, to the extent that the lower court orders the Defendant to attach an electronic
2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant
A. According to the product description of the "mm 10mm mm mm mm mm mm" submitted by the Defendant at the trial of the Defendant, there may be side effects such as spawn, mixed, aggressive, and abnormal behavior, etc. due to abnormal reaction to mental disorder related to the use of the above drug. However, the side effects show diverse symptoms depending on the volume of taking drugs and individual physical differences, and the frequency of side effects is not high.
section 3.
There is no sufficient evidence to find that the defendant used the above drug for a long time prior to each of the crimes in this case, or that there was a side effect such as mental disorder reaction, etc.
B. The evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court is examined.