아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성매수등)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of order to attend a sexual buyer’s prevention program) is too uneasable and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope. In our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area for the first deliberation
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the judgment of the appellate court solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. After the Defendant purchased the victim’s sex as a minor, the lower court committed an offense, such as sending the message causing fear to the victim, which the victim wants to punish, and the possibility of recidivism of the Defendant, etc., sufficiently considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor in the appellate court.
In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing to be newly taken into account in the trial.
Therefore, since the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.
Therefore, it is true.