성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The main sentence of the case against the defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") in the judgment of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the 4 years of the suspended sentence of 2 years and 6 months) is too unfluent and unfair.
Although there is no special reason to not disclose or notify the personal information of the illegal defendant of the disclosure or notification order, it is unfair that the court below exempted the disclosure or notification order.
In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine for a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Public Crow Places) on September 19, 2014, and that the Defendant committed the same type of crime before one year passes from the fine and the subject and method of the instant crime, etc., it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had a risk of repeating sexual crimes
Judgment
In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the unfair argument of sentencing in the part of the Defendant case, and where the sentencing in the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unfeasible and so, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not appear.
This part of the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.
The defendant was admitted due to the defendant's age, occupation, social relationship, criminal record, and risk of recidivism, circumstances leading to the crime of this case and the details of the crime, and the disclosure and notification order of this case, which are acknowledged by the record as to the improper assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order.