beta
수원지방법원 2019.08.29 2019노2395

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence of the lower court (1.5 million won of fine and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are the following: (a) the Defendant, while recognizing each of the instant crimes, is against himself/herself; (b) the Defendant has no record of being punished due to sex crimes; and (c) the Defendant appears to have experienced economic difficulties due to his/her old health and age.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant transmitted obscene images to a victim using a communication medium twice, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak in light of the details and contents of the crime. The crime of this case appears to have been committed by each of the crimes of this case, and that the victim was unable to receive a considerable displeasure and mental impulse, up to the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment below because new sentencing data were not submitted during the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment below. In full view of other various circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and enforced June 12, 2019, on an ex officio decision on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with