아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등간음)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The defendant and the defense counsel at the trial court at the second trial court at the trial court at the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) withdrawn the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the trial date.
The punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
2. The instant crime is deemed to have sexual intercourse with a juvenile victim by force, and its nature is not good.
With regard to the crime of this case, the victim seems to have a significant mental impulse and have an adverse effect on the development of sound sexual consciousness.
However, in the appellate trial, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it.
The type of defendant's exercise is somewhat weak.
There is no history of sex offense against the accused.
As new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with those of the lower court.
Considering the various sentencing factors revealed in the appellate trial, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. The defendant is highly likely to recommit a crime, considering his/her age, occupation and environment, social relationship, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and the fact that he/she has no record of criminal punishment for sex crimes, etc. exempted from the employment restriction order.
It is difficult to see it.
In addition, taking into account the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's suffering by the employment restriction order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims of sexual crimes, there are special circumstances where the defendant should not be issued an employment restriction order.
Therefore, according to Article 3 and the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( January 16, 2018), the defendant is not subject to an employment restriction order.
4. The defendant's appeal is without merit.