(Special Robbery, Rape, etc.)

(b) Special robbery;

Illegal Residence

○○-gu Incheon ○○○○-dong 00 - 0

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

2. (a) . b. o. - - (b) - free of office.

Housing Incheon OOOOOO OO - OO ○○ Housing Moving

○○○-si ○○○○ OOO

Peption 3. b. Kim ○○ (-), and non-permanent

Resident Kimpo-si ○○ ○ ○3 Ri ○ ○○

○○○ ○○○, ○○○, OO in the place of registration in Incheon ○○○

Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order, ○○ and the Prosecutor

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order, ○○ shall be reversed. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

The request for an attachment order against the person to whom the attachment order is requested shall be dismissed.

The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is dismissed.

(a) Public prosecutor (1) of the gist of the grounds for appeal;

The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years sentenced by the court below to ○○○, for 10 years, for a maximum term of 10 years, for a short term of 7 years, and for 2 years and six months, for which the court below sentenced to ○○○○○○○, sentenced to 12 years, for which the court below sentenced to ○○○○○, was sentenced to 10 years, for which the court below sentenced to ○○○○, was sentenced to 10 years, for which the sentence of 3

B. Determination

A. Determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing on Defendant 1, 2, and 3

우선, 피고인 정○○에 대한 검사의 항소이유에 관하여 보건대, 피고인 정○○이 이 사건 각 범행을 주도하였고 피해자 정▲▲에 대한 범행은 그 범행 태양이나 범행의 패륜성, 대담성 등에 비추어 엄히 처벌함이 마땅하나, 피고인은 과거 성폭력범죄나 강도 범죄로 처벌받은 전력은 없다. 피고인은 자신의 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치면서 원심판결에 대한 항소도 포기하였다. 피고인의 이 사건 범행에 대한 양형기준에 따른 권고형의 범위는 징역 10년에서 징역 15년까지로 원심이 선고한 징역 12년의 형은 위 권고형량범 위에 포함된다. 그 밖에 피고인이 저지른 이 사건 각 범행의 동기와 경위, 수단과 결과, 위 피고인의 연령, 성행, 범행 후의 정황 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 양형조건을 종합적으로 검토하여 보면, 원심의 형은 적정하고 그 형이 너무 가벼워서 부당하다고는 인정되지 않으므로, 이 부분 검사의 항소는 이유 없다 .

Next, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant Kim ○ should be criticized in that the defendant took part in the crime of this case even though he had been subject to juvenile protective disposition twice including the same kind of crime. However, at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant did not actively take part in the crime of this case as a juvenile under the age of 17 at the time of the crime of this case, and the amount of taking part in the crime of this case is not large. The defendant was his father, but his father, who was divorced from the problem of gambling, drinking, etc., but did not take care of him in normal family environment, such as repeating the divorce. The defendant deposited some money for the recovery of damage caused by the victim, and he was able to repent in depth. The punishment of two and half years and six months sentenced by the court below is not recognized to have been sentenced to the punishment of this case, and the defendant's punishment of this case is not deemed to have been included in the sentencing guidelines of this case as a whole, and there is no reason to have been no reason to impose the punishment of this case, including punishment of this case.

B. Prior to determining the grounds for appeal on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant Lee ○○ and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant Lee ○○ and the above Defendant, prior to determining the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing on Defendant Lee ○○ and the prosecutor’s above Defendant, Defendant was sentenced ex officio and the Defendant was sentenced to an irregular term of imprisonment as a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of rendering the judgment of the lower court by birth on ○○ on ○○○ and on ○○○○, but the Defendant was sentenced to an irregular term of imprisonment. However, the Defendant’s case against Defendant Lee ○ became unable to be maintained any more due to the above reasons.

2. Cases concerning attachment orders;

A. Summary of the facts constituting a claim for attachment order and the judgment of the court below

검사는, 피고인 이○○이 2008. 11. 28. 청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률위반 ( 청소년강 간등 ) 죄로 소년보호처분을 받은 전력이 있는 자로서 다시 피해자 정▲▲에 대한 특수강도강간의 범행을 저질러 성폭력범죄를 2회 이상 범하여 그 습벽이 인정되고 성폭력범죄를 다시 범할 위험성이 있다는 이유로 특정 범죄자에 대한 위치추적 전자장치 부착 등에 관한 법률 ( 2010. 4. 15. 법률 제10257호로 개정되어 2010. 7. 16. 시행되기 전의 것, 이하 구 전자장치부착법이라 한다 ) 제5조 제1항 제3호에 의하여 전자장치 부착명령을 청구하였고, 이에 대하여 원심은 위 피고인에게 5년 동안 위치추적 전자장치의 부착을 명하였다 .

B. Ex officio determination

With respect to the attachment order case against the defendant ○○, the above defendant and the prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal. However, as long as the above defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the accused case, they are deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(6) of the former Electronic Device Attachment Act. We examine whether the judgment of the court below is legitimate ex officio.

Article 5(1)3 of the former Electronic Monitoring Act provides that a person deemed guilty of committing a sexual crime on at least two occasions and likely to recommit a sexual crime shall be subject to an order to attach an electronic device. In full view of the content of the provision, the structure and legislative purport of the former Electronic Monitoring Act, as amended by Act No. 10257, Apr. 15, 2010; and Article 5(1)3 of the former Act on the Attachment, etc. of Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter referred to as the “New Electronic Monitoring Act”) which was enforced on July 16, 2010, including cases where “the subject of a request to attach an electronic device is defined as the previous and conclusive judgment of conviction” includes cases where “sexual crime referred to in the above provision of the former Electronic Monitoring Act has been committed on at least two occasions,” and it is reasonable to deem that the person has received a final judgment of conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do470, Apr. 27, 2010).

However, even if it is interpreted that a sexual crime defined in Article 5 (1) 3 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is included in the previous criminal records, the previous criminal records refer to the case where the defendant has been convicted by strict proof by criminal procedure, and the case where a formal judgment of acquittal or dismissal of prosecution is rendered without substantive deliberation and judgment as to the criminal facts in the sexual crime case (Supreme Court Decision 2009.

10. Unlike the general criminal procedure, unlike the general criminal procedure, where a court proceeds ex officio from a guardian's position on a juvenile and does not involve a prosecutor's involvement, and where a juvenile protective disposition or a prosecutor's suspension of indictment is imposed on a sexual crime under Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Electronic Monitoring Act in the juvenile protection procedure which is treated as an object of trial rather than as a party to the trial, the electronic monitoring system under the Act on the Attachment of Specific Criminal Offenders is appropriate to interpret that it does not fall under the case where a sexual crime under Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Electronic Monitoring Act is committed. The electronic monitoring system under the Act on the Attachment of Electronic Monitoring of Electronic Devices for Specific Criminal Offenders is a kind of security measure to protect a citizen from a sexual crime by taking an additional measure to protect a sex offender by tracking his/her behavior to re-social by correcting his/her personality and behavior, and it is also necessary to apply the above fundamental right to protect the victim from a sexual crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1947, May 14, 2009).

기록에 의하면, 피고인 이○○은 2008. 11. 28. 청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률위반으로 소년보호처분을 받은 전력이 있고, 이 사건에서 1회의 성폭력범죄를 범한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 앞서 본 바와 같이 소년보호절차에서의 소년보호처분은 형사소송절차에 따라 엄격한 증명에 의하여 유죄의 확정판결을 받은 경우에 해당하지 않기 때문에 소년보호처분의 원인이 된 성폭력범죄의 비행사실은 구 전자장치부착법 제5조 제1 항 제3호 소정의 2회 이상의 성폭력범죄에는 포함되지 않는다고 판단되고, 성폭력범죄를 범하여 소년보호처분을 받은 것이 신 전자장치부착법 제5조 제1항 제3호 소정의 성폭력범죄를 범하여 유죄의 확정판결을 받은 경우에 해당하지 아니하므로, 신 전자장치 부착법에 의하더라도 부착명령의 요건을 충족하지 않는다. 그리고 가사 위 소년보호처분의 원인이 된 성폭력범죄도 구 전자장치부착법에서 정하고 있는 2회 이상의 성폭력 범죄에 포함된다고 하더라도 전자장치 부착명령을 부과하기 위해서는 성폭력범죄를 2 회 이상 범한 것 외에 피고인에게 성폭력 범죄의 습벽이 인정되어야 할 것인데, 기록에 의하면, 피고인 이○○이 소년보호처분을 받은 사건의 범죄사실은 위 피고인이 만16세의 나이에 자신의 여자친구인 피해자를 화장실로 불러내 안대를 착용케 한 후 성관계를 하다가 잠시 멈춘 후 자신의 후배로 하여금 대신 자신인 것처럼 성관계를 하도록 한 것으로 정신적으로 미성숙한 나이에 치기 ( 雅氣 ) 내지 후배 앞에서의 과시욕에 기인한 행동으로 보이고, 이 사건 범행도 피고인 이○○은 피해자 정▲▲의 집에 돈이 별로 없어 피해자의 통장과 현금카드를 강취하여 은행에 돈을 인출하러 다녀온 사이 피고인 정○○에 의하여 피해자 정▲▲의 옷이 벗겨진 것을 보고 우발적으로 강간범행에 이른 것으로 보여 위와 같은 성폭력 범행만으로는 피고인에게 성폭력범죄의 습벽이 있다고 볼 수는 없을 것이다 .

Therefore, the court below ordered the attachment of the location tracking device against the above defendant, although the request for the attachment order of this case against the defendant Lee ○, should be dismissed without any justifiable reason. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation and application of Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Electronic Monitoring Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant Lee ○ is based on the above ex officio reversal, it is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the former Electronic Device Attachment Act, and it is again decided as follows after the pleading. Since the prosecutor's appeal on the defendant Jeong ○ and Kim ○○ is without merit, it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts and the summary of the evidence against the defendant Lee ○, who is recognized by this court, are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 334(2) and (1), 333 (Special Robbery, Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, Article 5(2) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof, Articles 334(2), 333, and 297 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of special robbery and Rape, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○: The penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment of sexual crimes with heavy punishment and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

Imprisonment for 10 years, 22 years and 6 months;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes; Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (special robbery, rape, etc.);

[Determination of Type] A sex offender group, general criteria, rape (subject to more than 13 years of age), Type 3 [Special Persons] increase of extreme sexual humiliation and special robbery provided for in Article 5(2) of the Sexual Exposure Act;

[General Persons] A planned crime

[General Mitigation] Voluntary Maternity

[Scope of Recommendation] 9 years of imprisonment - 13 years (aggravating area)

[Special Adjustment of the Scope of Recommendations] Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years - 13 years (in accordance with the lower limit of applicable sentences under law)

(b) Other offences for which the sentencing criteria are set in (1) concurrent with other offences for which the sentencing criteria are set; special robbery;

[Determination of Type] Robbery, General Criteria, Type 2

[A person under special circumstances] 5 or more co-principals (type 2)

[General Persons] A planned crime

[General Mitigation] Voluntary Maternity

[Scope of Recommendation] 5 years of imprisonment - 8 years of aggravation (in the area of aggravation) (2) : Imprisonment for 10 years - 17 years

3. Determination of sentence;

피고인 이○○은 이 사건 범행 당시 소년이고 당심에 이르러 성년이 되어 정신적으로 아직 성숙하지 못한 나이에 이 사건 범행을 저지른 것이며, 피해자 곽○○, 정▲의 피해회복을 위해 500만 원을 공탁하였고, 자신의 잘못을 뒤늦게나마 깊이 뉘우치고 있다 .

그러나 피고인은 2008. 11. 28. 청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률위반 ( 청소년 강간등 ) 죄로 소년보호처분을 받은 외 다수의 소년보호처분 전력이 있고, 2008. 5. 22. 서울북부지방 법원에서 특수절도죄로 징역 8월에 집행유예 2년, 보호관찰 2년을 선고받아 보호관찰 기간 중이었음에도 자숙하지 않은 채 오히려 종전 범행보다 훨씬 더 중한 이 사건 각 범행을 범하였다. 피고인은 공범인 피고인 정○○과 함께 유흥비를 마련하고자 새벽시 간에 평화로운 가정에 침입하여 흉기로 피해자 곽○○ 부부와 8세의 큰 아들을 위협하여 금품을 강취한 후 추가로 금원을 더 강취하고자 현금카드를 빼앗고 비밀번호를 알아낸 뒤 어린 자녀를 인질로 현금인출기까지 데리고 가 돈을 인출하고 다시 집으로 돌아와 임신부인 피해자 정▲▲을 강간하고 위 피해자의 입에 사정한 후 그 정액을 삼키도록 하는 등 그 범행의 대담성, 흉포성, 변태성은 극에 달하여 죄질이 극히 불량하다 .

피고인의 이 사건 범행으로 인하여 피해자 부부는 이사를 가기 위해 자신들의 생활근 거지인 집을 내놓은 상태이고, 당시 임신부였던 피해자 정▲▲은 임신기간 내내 극심한 스트레스와 불안감에 시달려 왔고 평생 치유될 수 없는 상처를 가슴에 안고 살아가게 될 것이며, 피해자 부부의 큰 아들도 피고인들이 학교나 집에 다시 찾아올까봐 무서움에 떨면서 밤에 잘 때도 불을 켜두고 자는 등 심한 정신적 고통에 시달리고 있어 단란했던 피해자들의 가정은 송두리째 파멸되어 피해자들은 하루하루 고통스런 삶을 살아가고 있다. 그 밖에 위 피고인이 저지른 이 사건 각 범행의 동기와 경위, 수단과 결과, 위 피고인의 연령, 성행, 범행 후의 정황 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 양형조건을 종합적으로 참작하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다 .

The rejection of the request for attachment order

The summary of the fact that the request for the attachment order against the Defendant ○○ is identical to that of Article 2(a). This cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements of Article 5(1)3 of the former Electronic Monitoring Act, and the above Defendant’s request for attachment order against the above Defendant is groundless and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 9(2)1 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Magras

Judges semi-presidential mother