아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(장애인간음)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) declared by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of the original judgment and the sentencing since a new sentencing data is not submitted in the trial; and (b) the Defendant did not have a same criminal record; and (c) the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (one year to half year and half year) the prosecutor is punished by imprisonment for eight years on the ground that the scope of the recommended sentence falls under the scope of imprisonment between eight and twelve years; (b) however, it appears that there is any error in the application of the sentencing guidelines as seen below.
1. Basic crimes and concurrent crimes [decision of types] general standards for sex offenses against the disabled persons (not less than 13 years of age) and the areas where punishment is not mitigated [the scope of recommending punishment] [the areas where punishment is mitigated (one year and six months of imprisonment or three years of age);
2. Scope of sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and six months from June to five years, and the sentence of the court below sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years shall not be deemed unfair enough to escape the reasonable scope of discretion, as the sentence of the court below is too unhued;
On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that it is illegal to exempt the defendant from the order to disclose personal information in the statement of grounds of appeal. However, the defendant's age, occupation, social relationship, criminal record, risk of recidivism, personal information registration, and sexual violence, which are revealed in the records of this case.