beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.08.29 2016도8132

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, there are special circumstances in which the court below should not disclose personal information to the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

It is difficult to see

It is just to order the disclosure of information about the defendant for a period of five years, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of an unfair sentencing can be filed only when the court below rendered a sentence of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order, in light of the record, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, risk of recidivism by the Defendant.

It is reasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. All final appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.