beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erroneous determination of facts and did not so on domestic affairs.
Even if the court below's punishment (two months of imprisonment, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of disclosure notification order) is too unreasonable.
B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant at the destination, without having the victim leave the taxi at the destination while having the Defendant flown alcohol, and sought a knishing place.
The defendant's assertion is without merit, since he stops a taxi in front of the so-called dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong with the back seat of the driver's seat, puts the door from the back side of the driver's seat, puts the victim's each bridge, and has the defendant's sexual organ on the part above the part above the part above the victim's inside, and fully recognizes the fact that the defendant's sexual act has been done several times in front and rear.
B. The grounds for sentencing favorable to the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing are not serious; the Defendant denies the crime and did not endeavor to recover from damage; the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to the same kind of crime; and the Defendant’s indecent act as a taxi engineer and the nature of the offense is not good; in full view of all matters concerning the Defendant’s age, occupation, and other sentencing specified in this case’s records and arguments, the lower judgment’s punishment is deemed appropriate; thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.