beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order of observation and the appeal by the prosecutor are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as the Defendant and the claimant for the order to observe the protective police officers (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the part of the Defendant case, the crime of this case committed an indecent act against the victim under the influence of sobry in a sobry room used by the public, and the nature of the crime is not less severe. The crime of this case appears to have been committed by the victim, the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, the fact that the Defendant did not have reached an agreement with the victim, and the fact that the Defendant’s indictment was suspended on one occasion due to a forced indecent act is disadvantageous to the Defendant
As a youth of 25 years of age, the defendant has been suffering from long-term hospitalized treatment due to a dynamic disorder before several years, and currently under the same illness, the defendant's intention to cure is strong, the parent of the defendant also has to treat and guide the defendant, and the defendant has no other criminal record except for punishment once by a fine.
In addition, considering the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, and environment, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unhued and unfair.
Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.
B. As long as a prosecutor has lodged an appeal against the Defendant’s case regarding the part of the claim for protection observation order, it is deemed that the prosecutor also filed an appeal against the case in accordance with Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc.
However, as seen earlier, this Court maintained a suspended sentence on the Defendant’s case.