Defendant

In addition, both appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As the Defendant and the person who requested to suspend an attachment order and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) voluntarily ceased to commit the instant rape, the punishment should be mitigated or exempted as it constitutes an attempted rape under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.).

2) The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

3) The sentencing of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

4) Although there is no risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes against a criminal defendant, it is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the criminal defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years.

B. The crime of robbery by robbery at night under Article 334(1) of the Public Prosecutor’s Criminal Act is established when the crime of robbery was committed on an opportunity to intrude into a residence at night, and does not require that the robbery was intentionally invaded upon a house. However, the lower court did not prove that the Defendant intentionally intruded on a robbery.

In light of the above facts charged, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged and sentenced him to robbery, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On November 28, 2010, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 01:40 on November 28, 2010, the Defendant took the bridge of the truck parked adjacent to the studio building in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) obstructed the victim’s face and head, etc. by intrusion into the said building through the 2nd floor window; and (c) led the victim’s resistance to the victim’s face and head, etc. by saving one cell phone with approximately KRW 700,000,000 of the market price owned by the victim at night; and (d) took the victim’s property by assaulting the victim at night.

2) The lower court’s determination is based on Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act, where the robbery was caused by the intention of robbery after intrusion upon another person’s residence at night.