beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: The punishment of the lower judgment (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 4 months and 40 hours) is too heavy.
B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower judgment is too minor.
2. Determination is a favorable reason for sentencing, including the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the offense; (b) the Defendant only once a fine of 10 years prior to the confession; and (c) there are family members to support; (d) the fact that a private taxi driver is under 17 years of age who is a female passenger under 17 years of age is under the influence of alcohol and has been under the influence of alcohol on two occasions; (b) the degree of indecent act is very bad; and (c) the fact that a private taxi driver was under the influence of alcohol by a female passenger under 17 years of age; and (d) the fact that he was under the influence of self-defense in front of such female; however,
In light of the above sentencing factors comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading up to the commission of the crime, and all other matters regarding the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment below’s punishment is determined to be appropriate, and there is no change of circumstances to be considered in the trial. Thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, in light of the facts of the crime and the name of the crime, the provisions of Article 298 and Article 297 of the Criminal Act, the application of the law of the judgment below, "Article 297 of the Criminal Act for the 1. Criminal Act", in the application of the law of the judgment below, is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Articles 299 and 298 of the Criminal Act", and thus, the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure