성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures, confiscation) sentenced by the court below, the defendant asserts that the above punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the above punishment is too uneasible and unfair.
2. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.
The judgment below
It does not seem that new circumstances or special changes are to be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence, and further, considering the circumstances and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the reasons for sentencing as a whole in the records, the lower court’s sentence is adequate.
The lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too heavy or light beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.
Each argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor is without merit.
3. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities ( December 11, 2018), Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, effective June 12, 2019, applies to persons who committed sex offenses before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.
The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes falls under a sex offense to which the above provision applies, and thus, this court must decide on whether to issue an employment restriction order or to exempt the defendant from the employment restriction order.
In light of the Defendant’s age, criminal record, family environment, social relationship, details and motive of the crime, method of the crime, and consequence of the employment restriction order, the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the preventive effect of the sex crime that can be achieved therefrom, the effect of the victim protection, the possibility of recidivism, etc., it is determined that there are special circumstances that the employment restriction should not be imposed on the Defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of