beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
For the defendant.
Reasons
1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for attachment order was sought, and only the Defendant appealed.
Therefore, there is no benefit in appeal as to the part of the case of the attachment order against the defendant.
I would like to say.
Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the legal fiction of appeal, is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201). Accordingly, the part regarding the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is not examined. Accordingly, the part regarding the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of this court’s trial.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by compulsion as stated in Paragraph (1) of the lower judgment.
Nevertheless, the court below's conviction of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
3. Ex officio determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts among the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio following the amendment of indictment, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment with the purport of changing the “201 June 7, 2012” in the first sentence of paragraph (1) of the facts charged to the “2012 around July, 2012.” Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the lower court was no longer maintained.
However, even if there is a reason to reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio as above, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the changed facts (the defendant's assertion that he did not commit a crime under paragraph (1)) is still subject to the judgment of this court, and therefore, paragraph (4) of