Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was a disabled person of the second degree of intellectual disability, and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Even though the court below did not reduce the mental and physical weakness, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts concerning the defendant's mental and physical weakness or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a three-year imprisonment and a five-year registration information disclosure and notification) on the ground that the sentence was too unreasonable.

(c)

The attachment order of the court below for a long-term argument during the period of attachment of an electronic device is unfair as it is too long as the period of attachment (20 years) is extended.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the Medical Care and Custody Director’s mental appraisal result and the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it can be acknowledged that there was a warning disorder that shows symptoms such as the fall of intelligence or fall of abstract accident function at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but due to such intellectual disorder, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and rather, since each of the crimes of this case was derived from the character characteristics of the defendant, it is necessary to correct the correction of the defendant to correct his behavior through the correction of the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the appellate court submitted a report on the investigation of sentencing conducted by investigators belonging to the Seoul Central District Court, and a notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the treatment custody center.

However, even after examining these sentencing data submitted by the original court, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions for the defendant compared to those of the original court.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors revealed in the public trial, the sentence of the court below is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable discretion of the court.