성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등간음)등
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from 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 materials for sentencing, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.
In addition, in full view of the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records and pleadings, including the fact that Defendant A lacks intellectual ability as a juvenile at the time of committing the crime, and there are intellectual or verbal obstacles to his parents and siblings, Defendant B is class 2 of intellectual disability, Defendant C is Grade 3 of intellectual disability, and Defendant C is in Grade 3 of intellectual disability, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants was excessively unfluent and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
shall not be deemed to exist.
We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.
2. In full view of the various circumstances revealed by the lower court, including the fact that the Defendants were juveniles at the time of committing the crime, Defendant B and C did not have any force on sexual assault, there are special circumstances in which the disclosure and notification of the Defendants’ personal information should not be made.
The decision is judged.
The court below is justified in exempting Defendants from issuing orders to disclose and notify personal information.
This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.
3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed on the grounds that all of the appeals by the prosecutor are without merit (Provided, That since the 6th judgment of the court below is less than the 'B', the 6th judgment of the court below is less than the 'B', it is corrected ex officio in accordance with