성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강제추행)
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months imprisonment, the disclosure and notification order five years) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the part of the defendant's case is a discretionary judgment based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the court of first instance does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the court of first instance, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Even though the sentencing of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance just because it is somewhat different from the opinion of the court of first instance, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant, and other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act. The lower court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and one year and six months, which were sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant, was the lowest range of recommended sentences under the law applicable to discretionary mitigation and sentencing guidelines: The scope of recommended sentences for one year and six months and fifteen years: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six years and fifteen years: 1 year and three years [the determination of sentence] of imprisonment for a sex crime; if the degree of indecent act committed by the disabled (the age of 13 years and above) is weak, the lower court did not recognize that the lower court exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. With respect to the case for which a request for attachment order is made, the respondent shall be the accused case.