성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A. The defendant was suffering from the past sexual assault crime and was suffering from mental disability, and at the time of each of the crimes in this case, he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime.
B. As to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 5 years employment restrictions, and confiscation), the Defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things and make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the background, means, methods, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, etc., although it is recognized that the Defendant was serving in the military in the past and was sexually abused, and that the Defendant had a weak mental problem.
The defendant's argument about mental disorder shall not be accepted.
B. We also examine the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the assertion of unfair sentencing.
If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.
In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy, or it is difficult to view that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being frightened.
3. Conclusion, the defendant and the prosecutor.