아동복지법위반(아동에대한음행강요ㆍ매개ㆍ성희롱등)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court omitted the sentence of forfeiture (public prosecutor) with respect to the cellular phone (No. 1) owned by the Defendant, which was provided for the instant crime, omitted.
B. As to the decision of the court below on the unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of omission in a sentence of confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, so the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements of confiscation is left at the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, the court below’s failure to confiscate five mobile phones (No. 1) may be deemed as a result of exercising the above discretionary power when the court below committed the crime that was confiscated and the defendant did not appear to use the above seized article only for the crime of this case, and it cannot be deemed unfair to not confiscate the above seized article.
Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, the instant crime is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that the Defendant sent 80 text messages against the victim who is merely 12 years of age, and furthermore, by bringing sexual intercourse to the victim directly meet the victim or at the Defendant’s home, and by bringing sexual intercourse to the victim. In light of the object, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime is very poor in light of the nature of the crime, and even though the Defendant had already been punished for the quasi-rape of the minor against the child of 7 years of age (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution), the Defendant committed the instant crime again.
However, the defendant seems to have an attitude to oppose the mistake by recognizing the crime as a substitute, and the victim has reached an agreement with the victim.