Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by a probation order requester and a prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A summary of the judgment of the court below and the respondent for probation order filed a request for probation order on the grounds that the defendant is likely to recommit sexual crimes.

(hereinafter referred to as "defendants") is a cab driver who has driven a corporation taxi and operates a female victim (26 years of age) on a new wall.

In the fourth place where the human being was raped by taking advantage of the victim's non-sane or non-sane state of difficulty (quasi-Rape), and administered approximately 0.05 g of the Melacian (one philophone) as a one-time injection in a car of the Melacian.

[Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) was prosecuted as the facts charged, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment, additional imposition 100,000 won, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for forty hours, and order to put an employment restriction for three years, and dismissed the request

B. 1) Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unlimited and unreasonable. 2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on which the lower court sentenced an unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable. (B) The lower court’s dismissal of the probation order against the criminal defendant, who was unfair, should be sentenced to probation order in the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, is unfair.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties refers to the case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below is discretionary when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the sentencing review process of the court below.