beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
The sentence (11 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable in sentencing the main sentence of the grounds for appeal.
It is unfair that the court below ordered the disclosure and notification of the personal information of the defendant for a period of ten years.
Judgment
The fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the stolen amount is the small amount, is favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, at night, the defendant intruded into the telecom and stolen money at night, and threatened the victim who was divingd with the telecom at that place, thereby putting the victim's fingers and sexual organ into the part of the victim's sexual organ and inserting the victim's sexual organ several times until the victim's drafting.
The victim, who is still 19 years of age due to the above crime, seems to have suffered physical mental suffering and shock of the token which is difficult to lifelongly, along with extreme sexual humiliations, and the victim actually suffered from scarcitys, etc. or was treated with scarcitys.
Defendant 1 was found to have been engaged in drinking in the currency with the staff of the Protection Agency and the Defendant’s sexual flag suspended several times among the above crimes.
A false report was made, and after completion of the crime, it was intended to conceal the crime, such as bringing the suspension to the victim's body and making the victim wear the body.
Not only has the history of having been punished several times due to theft, etc., but also the defendant was already sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six years due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (special rape, etc.) at the time of the crime in this case, and was in the period of repeated crime upon termination of its execution. The defendant did not know even though he had attached an electronic tracking device due to such criminal record