beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.03.10 2017노59

주거침입등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized that all of the instant crimes were committed, thereby opposing the mistake.

The Defendant appears to have functioned in the part of mental delivery when he repeatedly commits the instant crime (Provided, That the Defendant and his defense counsel did not assert mental and physical weakness, and even according to the record, the Defendant has a character defect or mental disorder to the extent that it can be assessed to be equal to the person with mental disorder within the original meaning.

In addition to those who were sentenced once a suspended sentence due to a sexual crime at the time of the instant crime, there is no criminal record against the Defendant, and the victims of intrusion upon residence whose identity has been verified do not want to be punished against the Defendant.

As the parents of the defendant want to take the lead in the treatment and guidance of the defendant, it is relatively clear that the social relationship of the defendant is relatively clear, such as the defendant's father's agreement on behalf of the defendant.

However, the crime of this case intrudes the defendant's cell phone into a soup room where many unspecified people have access to it 14 times for the purpose of stealing women, and intrudes the defendant's mobile phone into the soup room where they have sexual intercourses three times in order to see the appearance of sex, and the crime is not likely to be committed in light of the contents, frequency, method, etc. of the crime.

In particular, the Defendant did not have been aware of the history of being sentenced to suspended execution due to the following crimes: (a) the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Intrusion into public places for sexual purposes) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Assault into public places for sexual purposes) by arbitrarily photographing the body of a female victim who was melting in the public toilets with a view to satisfy his/her sexual desire.