Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order regarding a prosecuted case, a judgment ordering the attachment, etc. of an electronic tracking device for ten years as to a request for attachment order, and a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order.

On the other hand, only the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the judgment below.

Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the probation order claim is excluded from the scope of the trial of the original instance court as there is no interest in appeal to the defendant, and is included only in the case of the defendant and the case of the request for attachment order.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal (along-year imprisonment, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the accused case, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are fully considered, the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

① 이 사건 범행 내용과 그 결과 면에서 범행 정상이 매우 좋지 않은 점, ② 피고인이 피해자에게 상당한 정도의 유형력을 행사하였던 점이나 피해자의 나이, 당시 피해자가 자신의 집에서 피고인과 단둘이 있었던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피해자가 느꼈을 공포심의 정도가 가볍지 않아 보이는 점(이 사건 범행에 따른 충격으로 피해자는 자신의 집에 돌아가지 못하고 있다), 공판기록 62쪽 ③ 아들뻘의 피고인에게 이 사건 범행을 당했던 피해자가 느꼈을 성적 수치심과 정신적 고통의 정도가...