성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. It is improper for the lower court to issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant for 10 years.
2. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes against the wife and the victim who is a child or juvenile under his/her protection.
The defendant's wife and children committed each of the crimes of this case by using the time of night or new wall or by taking an opportunity to leave the victim of the lane, and the victim did not cause any damage to the defect that he intends to leave the house of the defendant, which led the victim to overwork and return to the victim.
At the lower court, the Defendant did not merely deny the crime, but did not seem to have completely divided into evidence, such as submission of data on the privacy of the victim who acquired without permission as evidence, and taking the issue of the victim's behavior.
The victims have suffered serious mental suffering for a considerable period of time to the extent that they should receive mental and medical treatment due to each of the crimes in this case, and have reached a situation where school life is difficult to properly.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, when the defendant was in the trial, he led to the confession of the previous crime, and furthermore, in the trial, he paid compensation to the victim and the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant.
Rape crime was committed in an attempted crime, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment.
Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.
In full view of these circumstances and various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be too unreasonable.
Defendant’s assertion is with merit.
3. Conclusion, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is with merit.