성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강제추행)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and 100 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with 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 it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Regarding the instant case, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant, as well as the circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court, and since the lower court’s statutory minimum sentencing period of the instant crime was two years and six months, it is impossible to sentence the Defendant who does not have any additional legal mitigation reason, and as the Defendant is a repeated offender, it is not impossible to sentence the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for less than two years and six months, and as the Defendant is disqualified for the suspension of execution, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and it is not recognized that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.