beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the attachment order case against Defendant A and the part on Defendant B and D, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")
(2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, B, and B (Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment, and 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment) on July 16, 2012, which was written in writing by Defendant A and submitted to this court, contains the aforementioned purport in the statement of grounds of appeal on July 16, 2012. Defendant A did not commit rape as described in paragraph (5) of the facts charged.
3) The lower court’s sentence (as above, two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, one year and four months of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendants of the public prosecutor’s charge is deemed unfair. (B) The part of the attachment order case (the part of the Defendant A, B, and B did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime, and even if there exists a risk of recommitting a sexual crime, the period of attachment of the lower court against the said Defendants is too prolonged and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Part 1 of the Defendant case: (a) prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against Defendant B and D, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal against Defendant B and D, the prosecutor examined ex officio; and (b) the prosecutor’s amendment of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse by deceptive Means or force (in collusion with Defendant C, M and thereby, the Defendants committed sexual intercourse three times with the victim who is a child or juvenile by deceptive scheme or force, and attempted to commit sexual intercourse once in collusion with Defendant B and M; and (c) in the applicable provisions of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Defendants B and D applied for permission to delete “the attempted sexual intercourse by deceptive scheme or force” and thus, the judgment was modified by this court.