성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등간음)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Requests for each protection observation to the claimant for the protection order.
Ⅰ. The part of the case of the defendant
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: Determination of each of the punishments imposed on the Defendants at the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for Defendant A, 6 years of imprisonment, completion of 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years, and completion of 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) is excessively unreasonable.
2. According to the materials examined by the appellate court of the judgment, Defendant B has a intellectual obstacle to the Gyeongdo, and Defendant A has a record of being judged that there was a intellectual obstacle of class 5 at the time of the physical examination of the Military Manpower Administration.
This intellectual disability affected the motive formation or progress of crime.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
In addition, the appellate court did not submit new data on sentencing favorable to the Defendants.
Therefore, the sentencing condition of the appellate court was compared to that of the lower court and did not change separately.
In addition, considering all the factors revealed in the appellate court trial including the sentencing factors as stated in the reasons for sentencing in the judgment below, the Defendants’ intelligence and criminal responsibility ability, etc., the sentence of the court below is too heavy to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable discretion of the court.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendants' arguments.
3. In light of the Defendants’ age, occupation and environment, social relationship, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the situation before and after the crime, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment due to sex crimes, etc., whether to impose an employment restriction order, the risk of recidivism is very low.
In addition, in full view of various circumstances such as the degree and expected side effects of the Defendants’ disadvantage and the effect of preventing sexual crimes expected to be issued, and the effect of protecting children, juveniles, etc., there are special circumstances where the Defendants should not be issued an employment restriction order.
Therefore, Articles 3 and 56 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( January 16, 2018) are 3 and 56.