beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserted that the sentence of the lower court (a punishment of two years and eight hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair, while the Prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.
B. The prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case is unfair despite the risk of recommitting sexual crimes.
2. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the part of the case of the defendant is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed in comparison with the first instance court, and that the first instance court’s sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that is not different from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court’s judgment, and if the lower court’s reasoning for sentencing is found to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion on the defendant’s victim’s deposit in the appellate court’s judgment.
Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.
3. Examining the judgment on the part of the claim for attachment order, in light of the records, the lower court’s ruling based on the adopted evidence.