아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Defendant 1 committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not recognize that the victim was a minor at that time. Therefore, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s judgment is so unreasonable that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to take 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures. 4) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to put employment restrictions for each two years with child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that it is unfair that the sentencing of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The lower court did not issue an order to disclose and notify the Defendant’s personal information, even though there are no special circumstances to not disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information.
2. Determination
A. The lower court appears to have revealed the age, appearance and clothes of the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, the location and attitude of the Defendant and the victim at that time, and the location of the instant crime, which could be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc., as well as the circumstances following the instant crime, including the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency regarding the instant crime, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and his defense counsel at the lower court, such as the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency as to the instant crime, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant at the trial, it is determined that the Defendant could have known that the victim was a child or juvenile through the victim’s face at
Therefore, the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case.