성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강제추행)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, a suspended sentence of two years, a year of observation of protection, and an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture for a period of 40 hours) is too uneasy and unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below committed the instant crime by forcing the victim to commit an indecent act three times by forcing the victim to commit an indecent act by forcing the victim to commit an indecent act, etc. by forcing the victim to return film expenses to the victim avoiding contact or by failing to maintain his sexual organ with the victim, even though the victim was aware that he had a intellectual disorder, while making contact with the victim first, with the victim via the Messenger, and by inducing the victim to commit an indecent act by forcing the victim to commit an indecent act, etc. by forcing the victim to commit an indecent act, etc. against the victim by forcing him to commit an act of inducing the victim to commit an indecent act, etc.
In light of the fact that the defendant, who is a juvenile of 16 years of age, repeatedly commits an indecent act on the part of the victim by using an economic booming breath with no disability, but with a total intelligence of less than 31 (intelligent 38, less than 34 years of age, intelligence 34), the crime is very poor.
In addition, it is not easy that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the defendant's mistake is divided, the victim and the legal representative of the victim do not want the punishment by agreement with the defendant, and the defendant seems to have a level below the average level of 65 in intelligence index, and the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.
In comparison with the first trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first trial sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.