On the other hand, the court below decided to exclude a participatory trial against a prosecuted case on the ground that it constitutes a case where a victim or his legal representative does not want a participatory trial under Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Act”) under Article 9(1)3 of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials. The above provision excluding a participatory trial provides that where a victim does not want a participatory trial in sexual crimes, a court may decide not to allow a participatory trial at its discretion in consideration of the victim’s intent and characteristics of a participatory trial.

According to the records, the accused case case which constitutes sexual crime under Article 2 of the Sexual Violence Special Act, and the legal representative of the victim clearly expresses his/her intention not to want a participatory trial through the "victim's public defender's written opinion" submitted as of August 6, 2015, and the victim is the intellectual disabled person under the age of 14, and the victim is likely to cause additional secondary damage, such as impairing the victim's character or honor, invasion of privacy, sexual humiliation, sexual humiliation, and fear of fear, etc. during the trial process, and other characteristics of the participatory trial and the expected procedures and methods of the trial in the accused case, it is not appropriate to proceed as a participatory trial in the case of the accused case, and it is justified that the court below's decision not to have a participatory

Thus, the appellant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kang Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)