성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
except that this judgment.
1. The Defendant committed a crime without being aware of the fact that the crime was committed in light of the details and details of the crime committed and the age of the victim, etc., with respect to the wrongful argument of sentencing committed by both Defendant A, and that the Defendant committed a crime without being aware of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for another crime, etc.
However, the fact that the victim and his father agree with the victim before this court is the sentencing factor to be newly considered for the defendant.
In addition, even if the defendant is against the defendant, is old and has no criminal record of sex offense, it is also reasonable to consider it in favor of the defendant.
In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as character, character, environment, and means and consequences of crimes, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's unfair argument in sentencing is accepted, and the prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is not accepted.
2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in comparison with the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing as to Defendant B, where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court did not submit new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.
In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in one record and pleading, the lower court’s sentence exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
shall not be deemed to exist.
We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is too unfluent and unfair.
3. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is with merit, and it is reversed, and it is again decided as follows, and the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit.