beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court on the part of the Defendant case (two months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, three years of disclosure and notification order) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court on the part of the claim for attachment order ordered the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) to attach an electronic tracking device for three years, and the period of attachment is too long and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The circumstance that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the part of the Defendant case appears to have committed the instant crime under the circumstance that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and recognized his mistake, and that the Defendant did not have a mental or physical disorder but has a intellectual function at the level of boundary line, and thus, it appears that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the circumstances that lack shock capacity and judgment ability in social circumstances, and that the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million in order to recover from damage to the victim, etc.
However, on the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by indecent act by compulsion by force by the victim who was locked at soup, and the nature of the crime is not good. The crime of this case appears to have been committed by the victim, the defendant was sentenced to a fine once as a quasi-indecent act, which is a sexual crime of the same kind committed by force by a female who was locked at soup, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the record of criminal punishment three times as a public performance by force by committing an act of self-defense, and thereby committed the crime of this case at another time without being aware of the record of criminal punishment.
It appears that there is no special change in circumstances that would change the punishment of the lower court in light of the aforementioned various circumstances. Moreover, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of crime, and means of crime.