아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, since the new materials of sentencing were not submitted by the said court.
In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant was excessively unhutiled and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The prosecutor’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below is not accepted.
2. The lower court, ex officio, found the Defendant guilty of all the crimes of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which constitute the instant bodily injury and the sex offenses subject to registration under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”), and held that said crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
On the other hand, one fine was sentenced.
The registration period of personal information against the defendant is ten years under Article 45 (1) 4 and 45 (2) of the current Punishment of Sexual Violence Act. In light of the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (voluntary indecent act) which causes the registration of personal information against the defendant and the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (voluntary indecent act) and the severity of the crime, it is judged that the registration period is legitimate.
Therefore, this Court does not set the period of registration of personal information against the defendant more short-term.
3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed for reasons.