Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure of information of the Defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) for three years.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to restrict the residence of the Defendant for matters to be observed while ordering the Defendant to be put on probation for three years.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, recognized the instant crime of this case at a later time and violates his own mistake in depth.

The defendant paid a considerable amount of agreement to the victim and agreed with the victim, and the victim submitted a written agreement to the court of original instance to the effect that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

In the meantime, the defendant seems to have served and live in the local community as well as scholarship projects.

However, the crime of this case committed the crime of similar rape against the spouse of the defendant in the presence of the defendant, and the crime of this case is not considerably good in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the place and method of the crime.

Furthermore, the Defendant, after committing the instant crime, escaped not more than seven times and not more than seven times on the date of examination of the detention warrant, and had the victim escape until the lower court denied the instant crime and suffered secondary damage that allowed the victim to appear in the court and give testimony.

The Defendant committed the crime resulting from rape and had a record of being subject to suspended execution by committing the crime, and was sentenced to imprisonment due to a crime of fraud, and again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime after the execution of the sentence was completed.

Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the accused who is equivalent to his criminal liability.

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is discretionary.