beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Fact-finding: there is no fact that the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, has taken the victim F, etc. one time, has taken the victim’s walk, has taken the cream, or has taken the bridges, right-hands, and bridges with plastic view.
2) Improper sentencing: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which are the witness C of the lower court recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, when the Defendant’s scam or scams, scams, scams, and scams, scams, and scamscams
The testimony made by the victim E, the same purport as C, even though considering his mental age or intellectual ability, is relatively specific and consistent, and the victim F’s ple or her mar, such as his ple or her mar, is found to have a mar, even if considering that the victim F is a habiter who embling with the victim F, the above physical part is difficult to contact the victim F’s hand, and the defendant is also in accord with the defendant’s abuse form. The police and the prosecutor’s office’s investigation, there is a fact that the victim F and E are mard with the victim F and E as a plastic camping hole.
When considering all the statements, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the victim F, etc. is walking once, the defendant is blicking, and the victim's ship, side gate, and bridge is blicked with plastic camping hole, etc.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. We also examine the criminal defendant and prosecutor's unfair sentencing argument regarding each unfair sentencing of the defendant and prosecutor.
The defendant generally recognizes the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the defendant plays the role of father of the victimized child, and the victimized child's attending school.