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 instant crime committed by the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) was committed in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder (e.g., the state of mental disorder or mental disorder).
B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders when the defendant filed an appeal against the accused case. However, there is no reason to reverse this part ex officio without stating the grounds for appeal or the petition of appeal filed by the accused.
According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant had reached the state of mental disorder or mental disorder.
B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, there is a reason to consider the Defendant’s sentencing in favor of the sentencing, such as that the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim, that the degree of tangible power exercised by the Defendant is relatively excessive, and that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime.
However, this case is a case where the Defendant committed an indecent act by drinking up the sexual organ of a male victim who was on the surface of the water at the soup bank. Considering the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a four-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of sexual assault on 4 occasions, such as taking up the child’s sexual organ at soup at the soup bank, and the Defendant was sentenced to a four-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 2 months, it is highly likely that the Defendant would be subject to criticism and the risk of recidivism is high, it is difficult to deem that
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.