아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years;
3. The defendant;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter Defendant 1) suffered mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to mental illness at the time of committing the instant crime.
B) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2) In the part of the case where the Defendant’s request for attachment order is filed, the location tracking electronic device attachment order for 15 years ordered by the lower court is too harsh.
B. Prosecutor 1) Although it is deemed that a crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles has been committed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Apr. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides that the period of restriction on employment shall be differentiated for each defendant within 10 years, taking into account the seriousness of each offense, the risk of recidivism, etc. of each offense, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the Act enters into force, and thus, the above amendment shall also apply to this case.
However, the defendant's assertion of mental disorder and the prosecutor's misunderstanding of legal principles are still meaningful.