성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)등
Defendant
In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who applied for the treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable.
Although there is no risk of re-offending a crime to be subject to the medical care and custody for the defendant, it is improper for the court below to sentence the medical care and custody for the defendant.
Judgment
In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the part of the Defendant case, and the first instance 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). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and there is no special change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared with the lower court. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant was too too excessive, and thus
It is difficult to see it.
The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.
In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s necessity to receive medical treatment at the treatment and custody facility and the risk of recidivism is all recognized.
In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the medical care and custody center preparation, the judgment of the court below that recognized the necessity of medical treatment in the medical care and custody facility and the risk of recidivism is justified.
The defendant's argument on this part of the appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 51 of the Medical Care and Custody Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the part of the judgment below's reasoning is "registration and submission of new information".