성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that it is unreasonable for the lower court to impose an order on the Defendant to disclose personal information of the Defendant, although there are no special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information.
2. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor
A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.
Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.
In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)
Based on the specific judgment of the case, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, divided and reflected his mistake, the defendant has no criminal power, the defendant paid considerable money to the victims for the compensation of damage, and the family members of the defendant wanted to take the action against the defendant.