성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등추행)
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The part rejected by the court of final appeal as to a prosecuted case on the ground that the argument in the grounds of final appeal is groundless, becomes final and conclusive at the same time as the judgment is rendered, and the defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) can no longer dispute the above part, and the court to which the case was remanded cannot make a decision contrary to the above. Thus, the defendant cannot make a claim as to this part as the grounds
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2017 Decided June 9, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 201Do8478 Decided October 13, 201, etc.). Examining the records of this case in light of the above legal principles, the grounds of appeal, which asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the second remand judgment as to the criminal facts in the judgment below, was rejected, and the judgment of conviction was final and conclusive (the second remand judgment was reversed before the second remand on the grounds of violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change). Accordingly, the second remand judgment was reversed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the ground of appeal of this case, which asserted the judgment of conviction of the court below, cannot be seen as a legitimate ground of appeal.
In addition, pursuant to 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the court below’s punishment and the order to disclose personal information is unreasonable
2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, recognizes that the Defendant committed a sexual crime on at least two occasions and re-afuses a sexual crime.