2014도7267가.아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간[인정·된죄명아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반·(위계등간음)]·나.아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(준강간등)·다.성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등·이용촬영)·라.아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)·마.실종아동등의보호및지원에관한법률위반·(병합)부착명령
2014Do7267 A. Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Recognition of Rape)
violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse
(B) 【Blue of Fraudulent Means】
(b) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (rape-rape, etc.);
(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes;
User photographing)
(d) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act by Compulsion);
(e) Violation of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc.;
2014.(Joints) Attachment Orders
Persons whose attachment order is requested;
A person shall be appointed.
Defendant and the respondent for attachment order
Attorney V (National Assembly Line)
Seoul High Court Decision 2014Do724, 2014 Jeonno109 (Joint) Decided May 22, 2014
Judgment
August 20, 2014
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Defendant case
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sexual intercourse, such as deceptive scheme) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or
In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in this case where the defendant and the respondent for an order of arrival order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") were sentenced to a lower sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. As to the case of the claim for attachment order
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the defendant has a risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yang Chang-soo
Justices Go Young-young
Justices Kim Chang-suk
Justices Cho Jong-hee