성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.
2. In comparison with the judgment of the court below, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in the event that the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The defendant taken the chest and negative part of the victim, who was a juvenile under the influence of alcohol by mobile phone, and committed an indecent act by deceiving the body of the victim during that process, and then notified the victim of the harm that he/she would not have any contact with him/her would spread his/her photograph as if he/she were able to spread his/her photograph, and the nature of the crime is very difficult in light of the background of the crime, the relationship with the victim, etc.
The crime of this case seems to have been committed by the victim, along with his sexual humiliation.
The Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party until now.
However, there are some favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant fully recognized the crime of this case and appears to have reflected his mistake in depth through the life of detention for about four months, that there was no criminal history against the defendant, that the victim's b body photographs were not distributed to the general public, that the victim's b body photographs were not distributed to the general public, and that the parents of the defendant want to guide the defendant, and that the defendant's parents want to take care of the defendant.
In full view of all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, environment, etc., the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the lower court’s sentencing as it is.
Since the sentence of the court below is too uneasy so it seems unfair, the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is unfair.