beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) - the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable as it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s judgment that did not impose an order to disclose and notify personal information on the unfair accused of exemption from disclosure and notification order is unreasonable.
3. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the defendant's request for an attachment order even if the defendant's request for an attachment order is recognized to pose a risk of
2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case
A. 1) The Defendant did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal. Meanwhile, on February 12, 2015, the Defendant served the notification of the receipt of the trial records on February 12, 2015, and the Defendant’s state counsel submitted his counsel’s opinion on March 13, 2015, which was after the due deadline for submitting the notification of the receipt of the trial records on February 13, 2015, and only contests the unreasonable sentencing of the lower judgment, this does not constitute a legitimate grounds for appeal. Therefore, the instant crime is to be examined within the extent of examining ex officio whether there is any reason affecting the judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of the grounds for appeal, together with the prosecutor’s allegation of the unjust sentencing. 2) The instant crime is to be examined to the extent that it is within the scope of examining ex officio whether there is any reason affecting the judgment, committed an indecent act by force against the victim, committed an indecent act against the victim’s sexual organ, and its nature is not good and it is inevitable to punish the Defendant against the Defendant.
On the other hand, however, the fact that the defendant led to his crime and is against himself, that the defendant has no record of the same kind, and that the victim E does not want to punish the defendant.