beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. A summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order is requested);
A. The summary of the judgment of the court below and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “defendants”) are as follows: (a) the victim who was mixed with the victim (the victim (the victim 57 years of age) was sitting on a mixed way, and the victim was inflicted an injury on the victim’s hand and knenee side of treatment (the victim’s injury resulting from similar rape 2020 Gohap271), and (b) the employees requesting a hand disinfection and a heat test for the purpose of prevention of coina or 19 in the PC room, and used the end fire extinguishers, which is a dangerous object (the victim’s age 35), Ha (the victim, 20), I (the son, 18 years of age), I (the son, and 18 years of age) to put his sexual organ into the victim’s entrance.
(2020 Highly 292 Special Violence) was prosecuted as a charge, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device was also requested on the ground that there was a risk of recommitting a sexual crime. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge and sentenced the Defendant to a disclosure notification order for a period of four years, seven years, and ten years, and an order to attach an electronic device for ten years (including the imposition of compliance details).
B. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant is extremely unable to understand the situation and deliberation of the Defendant at the time of each of the instant crimes. In light of such circumstances, given that the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crimes, punishment should be mitigated. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
3) Although the Defendant was not likely to recommit a sexual crime, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years (including the imposition of compliance details).
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's claim of mental disability, the defendant in this case.