성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Even though the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disability, aggravation, etc., the lower court committed an excessive error.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed at the level of five years of age and seven months of age (I Q 40), and seven years of age and six months of age (S Q 47) is recognized as a person with a disability of Grade 2 of intellectual disability.
However, the Defendant committed the instant crime to satisfy his sexual desire under the recognition of the illegality of the crime by an investigative agency.
In addition, considering the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, the contents of the photographed image, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it does not appear that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disorder at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case is recognized that the defendant taken the body of the victimized female who may cause a sense of shame on the cell phone camera over several times for a long time and the crime of this case is not against the nature of the crime.
However, there is no agreement between the two victims whose personal information is specified, that the defendant does not leak the photographed video works externally, that the defendant commits a crime and reflects the defendant's wrongness, and that the defendant's family members want to provide continuous treatment and education to the defendant so that the defendant does not repeat the crime, that the defendant is a disabled person of Grade II intellectual disability, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and that there is no other age of the defendant;