성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수준강간)등
Defendant
B Appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair argument on Defendant B’s unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court did not submit new sentencing data to the Defendant, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination.
In addition, in light of the content of the crime, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing conditions in the record, including the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, including the fact that the crime is not good in light of the nature of the crime, the fact that the defendant committed the crime during the period of repeated crime, and the fact that the defendant committed the crime during the period of repeated crime, and the fact that it falls under class 3 of intellectual disability, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unhued
It does not seem that it does not appear.
We do not accept the argument of the defendant and the prosecutor that the court below's sentencing is unfair.
2. There is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, since this court did not submit a new sentencing data to the Defendants, as to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing on Defendant A and C.
In addition, considering the factors of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants were led to the crime, that the Defendants agreed with the victims, that Defendant A did not have any previous conviction, and that Defendant C did not have any other criminal history except for two times a fine of this kind, the nature of the crime is not good, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and so it deviates from the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that sentencing against the Defendants is unfair.
3. The Defendants had a record of sexual assault against the Defendants regarding the unjust assertion of exemption from disclosure or notification of personal information.