강제추행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) of the lower court is too unfased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). All circumstances alleged by the prosecutor seem to be reflected in the sentencing of the lower court.
In light of the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial; and (b) the circumstance and consequence of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant’s age; and (d) various conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant case’s records and pleadings, including the circumstances after the instant crime was committed; and (d) the Defendant’s character and conduct; and (e)
B. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “Revised Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) stipulates that the period of employment restriction shall be set differentiated within a ten-year period in consideration of the risk of recidivism when a court sentences a punishment for an individual sex offense case (hereinafter “amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”), and Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that “The amended provisions of Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019) shall also apply to persons who
Therefore, as the revised Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the sentence of the lower judgment, the sentence of the Defendant who committed sex offenses against adults, children and juveniles is imposed, and at the same time whether the order of employment restriction on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities is imposed and the