강제추행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
The defendant shall complete the sexual assault treatment program.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment of the lower court (a) is too unreasonable because the Defendant (a person who was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment and completed a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court exempted the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose personal information to the Defendant, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that there was no “special circumstance” that the Defendant should not be sentenced to an order to disclose personal information, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. We first examine the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.
A. The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the defendant committed the crime of this case on November 8, 2013 by serving a sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse as a result of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; ② the risk of recidivism appears high; ② the defendant's crime was not committed despite its poor nature in light of the criminal law; ③ the defendant's family and social relationship was not used by the victim; ③ the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the defendant's disclosure and notice of disclosure are not significant if the defendant's disclosure and notice of disclosure are executed; on the other hand, it is difficult to view that there is "special circumstances" that the defendant's personal information is not disclosed.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that exempted the defendant from disclosure and notification order by deeming that the defendant's personal information should not be disclosed to the public, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is with merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's allegation of exemption from disclosure disclosure order is with merit.