beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for an attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. obscenity produced by the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) in this case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is a motion picture that taken by the victim himself/herself to possess by himself/herself. Such motion picture constitutes a legitimate exercise of sexual self-determination in the private life sphere of the victim, and the Defendant merely assisted the victim’s photograph at his/her request.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the basis of the statements of the victim with no credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two and half years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
3) Although there are special circumstances under which the Defendant would not disclose or notify personal information, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to disclose or notify the personal information for a period of three years.
B. Prosecutor 1) The inducement of indecent act by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is that the Defendant, who lacks intellectual ability, caused a victim who lacks intellectual ability to obtain a ham, etc. and went back to the place that he wants after the saber, thereby leading the crime of inducement to the place that he wants, and whether the victim gave consent to the crime does not affect the establishment of the crime.
Even if the defendant did not exercise force against the victim in the course of inducing the victim, the exercise of force or intimidation is related to the sex of the crime of kidnapping and is irrelevant to the establishment of the crime of inducing.
In addition, even if one victim was unable to have access to the public notice where the defendant was living, it is only related to the nature of the crime of confinement, and the crime of inducement has already been completed.
Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged is acquitted.