(a) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (unborn year under thirteen years of age);

Rape, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (relative relations);

(Indecent Act by Compulsion)

2018. Consolidated order for attachment

1.(a) A

2.(c)(B);

Law Firm Cheongpa (for all the defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Defendants are ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours each time. They order the Defendants’ employment restrictions to each child and juvenile-related institution for seven years. The instant request for the attachment order is dismissed in entirety.

1. Defendant A

【Criminal Power】

On July 26, 2012, the Defendant, at the Seoul Central District Court, sentenced 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a indecent act by force in relation to relatives), was finally decided on January 7, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is the child of the victim C (here, the birth in 1996).

가. 피고인은 2004.9. ~ 11.일자를 알 수 없는 날 새벽 무렵 서울 성동구 D 소재 건물 1층에 있는 피고인의 주거지에서 피해자(당시 8세)에게 작은 방에 가서 함께 자자고 말하여 피해자를 작은 방으로 데리고 온 후 피해자의 옆에 누워 팔베개를 해 주다가 피해자가 잠이 들자 피고인의 손을 피해자의 상의 안으로 집어넣어 피해자의 가슴을 만졌다. 계속하여 피고인은 피고인의 위와 같은 추행 행위로 잠에서 깬 피해자가 당혹감과 두려움으로 인해 아무런 저항을 하지 못하고 있는 것을 이용하여 피고인의 손을 피해자의 팬티 안으로 집어넣어 피해자의 음부를 수회 만졌다. 이로써 피고인은 위력으로써 13세 미만의 피해자를 추행하였다.나, 피고인은 2010년 여름방학 직전 늦은 저녁 무렵 서울 중구 E빌라 F호에 있는 피고인의 주거지 작은 방에서 그곳에 있는 등받이가 없는 원형 의자에 앉아 노트북 컴퓨터로 영화를 보고 있던 피해자(당시 13세)의 뒤쪽으로 다가가 "뭐하냐? 아빠 왔는데 인사도 안 하냐?"고 말하면서 갑자기 피고인의 양손을 피해자의 양쪽 겨드랑이 안으로 집어넣어 피해자의 가슴을 감싸 쥔 후 피해자를 위로 들어 올렸다. 이로써 피고인은 친족관계에 있는 피해자를 강제로 추행하였다.

2. Defendant B

The defendant is a big victim.

In 209, the Defendant had no time to look at the children of his wife and her husband and wife, and the Defendant’s wife and her husband and wife were able to look at the Defendant’s children at the Defendant’s home until the Defendant’s husband and wife left his office. However, when the Defendant’s husband and wife’s home delays in returning home of the Defendant’s husband and wife, the victim was locked at the Defendant’s home.

A. A. Around the same period of time, the Defendant was unable to know the date 1). Around the same period of time, the Defendant accumulated the victim’s fingers from the victim’s home located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, by taking the victim’s fingers by the Defendant’s hand, brought the victim’s fingers around the Defendant’s inner part, and brought the victim’s fingers back to the Defendant’s inner part, thereby forced the victim’s fingers by taking the victim’s hand back to the Defendant’s panty, and forced the Defendant to put the victim’s fingers into the Defendant’s panty part, by taking the victim’s hand back. The Defendant continued to commit such indecent act by force and put the victim’s fingers back again into the victim’s panty part, and put the Defendant’s fingers into the part of the victim’s fingers into the victim’s panty part. Accordingly, the Defendant committed a similar act with respect to the victim under 13 years of age.

B. The Defendant, at the same place as Paragraph (a) of Article 2, around the same day of the same 2009 where it is impossible to know the date, found that the victim was seated on the floor and reported his cell phone, and attempted to look back to the victim by the victim’s hand, and attempted to look back to the victim with the victim’s own hand and the Defendant’s hand, and tried to look back to the victim’s chest with the victim’s chest in the shape of X-ray. The Defendant, at the same time as Paragraph (a) of Article 2, tried to keep the victim’s chest as the Defendant’s hand, and continued to look back with the victim’s chest. Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act by coercioning a blood-related victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness I, J.K and L;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and M in part;

1. A complaint prepared by the victim C [the list of prosecutor evidence Nos. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the order") 2], the police statement of the victim C (the order No. 8), the police statement of the victim C (the second round) (the order No. 35), the police statement of the victim C (the second round) (the order No. 35), the statement of the witness by the prosecutor of the prosecution against the victim C -

1. Family relation certificate (No. 4), victim C - C - the place of the crime, picture (No. 9), resident registration card, etc. - the abstract of resident registration card, etc. and family relation certificate (No. 14), the victim's personal records (No. 32), the victim's personal records (No. 39), the emergency medical services log (No. 43), the comprehensive opinion (No. 43), the recorded file CD (No. 52), the recorded file CD (No. 55), the investigation report (No. 26), the attachment of the suspect's judgment (No. 27), each inquiry report (No. 61,62).

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

Article 1-2(4) and (2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 8059, Oct. 27, 2006); Article 298 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 8059, Oct. 27, 2006); and Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010).

Article 1-2(2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010). However, Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) shall apply to the punishment of sexual crimes.

B. Defendant B

Article 2-1 (A) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 10258 of Apr. 15, 2010) Article 8-2 (5) and (2) 2 (a) of the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes) (amended by Act No. 10258 of Apr. 15, 2010). However, the upper limit of imprisonment shall be governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of Apr. 15, 2010).

Article 2-2(b) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 10258 of Apr. 15, 2010), Article 7(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 298 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes), Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of Apr. 15, 2010). However, the upper limit of imprisonment is governed by Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of Apr. 15, 2010

Defendant A: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of indecent act by compulsion in relation to relatives]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is heavier than that provided for in Article 1-2(b) of the same Act;

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in Article 2-1(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (a)

1. Order to complete programs;

A. Defendant A: Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Law No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

B. Defendant B: Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Law No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. Exemption, etc. from disclosure orders and notification orders;

A. Article 1-A of the Decision of Defendant A0 (a) No sexual assault crime against a child or juvenile committed before June 30, 2006 shall be subject to an order of disclosure under the Child Sex Protection Act (Act No. 9765) or the Child Sex Protection Act (Act No. 11572). In addition, even after the enforcement of the Child Sex Protection Act (Act No. 11572), it shall be deemed that only a person who committed a sexual assault crime against a child or juvenile after January 1, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17241, Mar. 29, 2012) can be sentenced to an order of disclosure and notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17241, Mar. 29, 2012).

Article 38(1) proviso of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 38(1) proviso of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 38(1) proviso of the same Act (amended by Act No. 11572, the crime of this part is subject to an order of disclosure; however, the crime of this part is subject to an order of disclosure; however, the crime of this part is likely to cause secondary injury to the victim in the course of disclosure of information about the defendant A; the crime of this part is likely to cause secondary injury to the victim; the crime of this case is sentenced to the sentence against the defendant A; the registration of personal information; the completion of the sexual violence treatment program; and all other circumstances such as

B. Defendant B: (a) Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); (b) Article 49(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; and Article 37(1) and (4) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765, Jun. 9, 2009) / [each of the crimes described in Paragraph (2) of the same Article on the grounds as mentioned above is not subject to an order of notification. Each of these crimes constitutes a person subject to an order of disclosure. However, each of the crimes is related to Defendant B and the victim is likely to cause secondary damage to the victim in the course of disclosing information on Defendant B; (c) the sentence of sentence on Defendant B; and (d) Article 49(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; (d) the disclosure of personal information and other adverse effects expected due to the sex offense.

1. An employment restriction order;

A. Defendant A: Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Law No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018); Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

B. Defendant B: Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Law No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018); Article 56(1) main text of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive on each criminal fact in the judgment against the Defendants liable to register and submit personal information, the Defendants are subject to registration of personal information in accordance with Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Act No. 14412, Dec. 2, 2016) and Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and such Defendants are subject to registration of personal information, and must submit

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

There is no fact that the Defendants committed the same crime as the facts stated in each facts charged. The statements made by the victims that they suffered from the same injury as the facts charged are false and not reliable.

2. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the victim’s statement about each crime in the judgment can be sufficiently reliable, and thus, the accused of each crime is guilty. The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A. Regarding the credibility of the victim's statement

1) Relevant legal principles

In determining the credibility of a victim’s statement supporting the facts charged, the court shall not only determine the credibility of a victim’s statement, in light of the reasonableness, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience of the victim’s statement itself, but also conforms to the witness evidence or a third party’s statement before a judge, such as the appearance or attitude of a witness being sworn in an open court after being sworn before a judge, and the appearance of a witness who is sworn in an open court, and a witness’s protocol, such as a penlance of statement, are considered to have been obtained by directly observing various circumstances that make it difficult to record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209). In such a case, where a witness’s statement, including the victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any other reliable evidence to deem the credibility of a witness’s statement as being objectively acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362

2) The credibility of the victim’s statement

(1) As examined below, the victim has consistently stated the grounds for and details of each damage inflicted on the facts constituting an offense in the judgment from the investigative agency to this court, and its own appraisal at the time of the statement, etc., and there is no particular unreasonable or contradictory part in the contents of the statement itself. In light of the victim’s attitude of statement in this court and the fact that the victim seems to have made a rush statement without any increase or decrease in the victim’s statement, it is deemed that the victim’s credibility of statement is high.

② On March 2018, Defendant A filed a complaint with the victim to the effect that it was too much time for the victim to take the victim’s birth at K. However, the victim talked about sexual violence crimes committed by the Defendants in K and Ma, and that Defendant A was able to file a complaint for her sexual assault, such as her birth, she was too large when she was living, she was unable to do so. The victim sent a message from K to the effect that she did not request the victim to make a false statement to the effect that she would have made a false statement to the effect that she would have made a false statement to the effect that she would have made a false statement to the Defendants, but it is difficult to find that the victim would have given her first inform KS and M before her complaint, and that the victim would not have made a false statement to the Defendants that she would have made a false statement to the effect that she would have made a false statement to the extent that she would not have reached an agreement with the Defendants in light of the fact that she would have made a direct statement to the Defendants.

③ Along with the psychological counseling of the victim, L diagnosed the victim as a chronic stress disorder. L is natural to view that psychological response, such as the victim’s awareness of the crime committed against the victim’s reporting, the likelihood of injury, the fear of fear, and the symptoms of avoidance, etc. were found, and that the victim was reported to the victim on a malicious monet with the content of retaliationed by the Defendants. The victim committed suicide and self-harm several times, and was recorded in writing, and then sent N messages that suggesting suicide to the victim after reporting the Defendants to the Center. During the psychological response, such as the victim’s awareness of the crime, labor, fear, and symptoms, and repeated behavior of attempted suicide and self-injury, such as the victim’s consistent statement, is naturally related to the victim’s indecent act committed against the Defendants. If the victim’s statement itself is false, the victim’s psychological condition and symptoms cannot be seen as having been found after the occurrence of the instant case, but it is difficult to find out the victim’s mental disorder other than the victim’s symptoms and symptoms of injury.

④ Considering the circumstances that the victim sent a letter containing difficulties or living with the Defendant A even after the victim experienced criminal injury, the Defendants and the defense counsel may assert that there is no credibility of the victim’s statement. Even after each crime was committed, it is recognized that: (a) the victim liveds with the Defendant A for a long time; (b) the victim continuously sent a letter containing the content of the victim’s “voluntary living with the Defendant A”; and (c) the victim sent a text message indicating that the victim was audited by the Defendant B who tried to separately live together. However, even according to the victim’s statement, it is difficult to view the credibility of the victim’s statement in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s friendly relationship exists between the victim and the Defendant; (b) when the victim was exposed to a sexual crime from the time when the victim was committed for a long time; (c) the victim’s scambling with the previous crime; and (d) the victim’s statement made by the Defendant B cannot be seen to have been justified in light of the victim’s intent.

B. Determination on specific criminal facts

1) Defendant A

A) No. 1-A of the ruling

① From September 204 to November 2004, the victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the date of this court that Defendant A and the victim were cut off. The victim made a statement that Defendant A put his hand into the victim’s inner part and left her chest and left her breast. The victim made a consistent statement about the situation before and after the crime committed in this part, Defendant A’s act, victim’s response thereto, subjective appraisal, etc. At the time of the crime in this part, the victim made a detailed and consistent statement about the situation before and after the crime in this part, the victim’s subjective appraisal, etc., and there is no especially unreasonable or contradictory part in the statement (the circumstances that the victim’s statement about the minor matters pointed out by the Defendant A and the defense counsel are somewhat inconsistent or that its contents are contrary to the empirical rule, etc., it cannot be seen that the credibility of the statement is dismissed in light of the victim’s age and long time).

② The victim stated in this court that “I think that I would like to associate with the reason for memory of this part of the facts of the crime, clearly and I think that I would like to be the same as I think that I would have given priority to it.” The reason and circumstance leading up to memory of the fact of the damage occurred for about 14 years can be sufficiently acceptable, and there are no special doubtful circumstances.

③ 피해자는 피고인 A과 단둘이 잠을 자게 된 경위와 관련하여 '그때 그 전날에 엄마랑 아빠랑 크게 다투시고 나서 아빠가 이제 나가서 산다고 해서 다음날 거의 초저녁 전쯤 아빠가 같이 고시원 알아보러 나가자고 해서 같이 돌아다니면서 알아보다가 집에 와서 아빠는 계속 컴퓨터 하시고, 큰 방에 큰언니랑 작은언니, 저, 남동생, 엄마 이렇게 있고, 작은 방에는 아빠만 계셨어요. 그러다가 10~11시 그쯤에 다 잠이 들고 나서 처는 계속 마음이 안 좋은 거예요. 그래서 아빠가 아직 있나 가서 확인해 봤는데, 아빠가 와서 같이 자자고 하셨고, 그때 “아빠 없이도 잘 살 수 있겠냐. 아빠 안 보고 싶겠냐" 그런 말을 해서 그때 저는 아빠가 좀 많이 처량하게 보여서 눈물이 막 나올 것 같았어요. 그러다가 감정을 추스르고 잠이 들었는데, 잠깐 잠결에 만지는 손결이 느껴져서 잠깐 깼었어요'라고 진술하였다(피고인 A, 언니인 증인 G도 2004년경 D에 거주할 당시 피고인 A은 작은 방에서 따로 잤다고 진술하고 있다). 증인 G은 이 법정에서 '피해자가 애교가 많은 성격이어서 피고인 A과 사이가 좋았다'고 진술하였고, 피고인 A도 경찰에서 평소 가족들과의 관계에 대하여 '장사하기 전에는 장모님이 애들을 시골에서 봐주셨거든요, 그런데 K가 당시에 피해자를 많이 때렸고, 장모님이 첫째랑 둘째는 예뻐하고 K는 남자라서 예뻐했는데 피해자만 별로 안 좋아해서 약간 왕따처럼 돼버린 거예요. 그래서 제가 피해자만 데리고 먼저 서울에 왔다가 다른 애들도 다 불러서 같이 살게 된 겁니다, ‘피해자와 제일 잘 맞았고, 재미있었어요', '제가 제일 예뻐하는 피해자인 데'라고 진술하였다(증거기록 162, 163, 166, 167쪽), 피해자는 친아버지인 피고인 A에게 남다른 애착심을 가지고 있었고, 피고인 A에 대한 연민 내지 별거에 대한 걱정 등으로 피고인 A과 단둘이 잠을 자게 된 것으로 보이는 점, 다른 가족들이 피해자와 피고인 A이 함께 따로 잠을 자는 것을 기억하지 못한다고 하더라도 피해 사실을 직접 경험한 피해자 진술의 신빙성이 더 높다고 보이는 점 등을 고려하면, 피해자가 피고인A과 단둘이 잠을 자게 된 경위도 충분히 수긍할 수 있고 특별히 의심스러운 정황이 없다.

B) No. 1-b. of the holding

① 피해자는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 2010년 여름방학 직전 늦은 저녁경 친구 J(개명 전 P)과 방에서 노트북으로 영화를 보고 있었는데, 일이 끝난 후 술을 마시고 집에 온 피고인 A이 의자에 앉아 있던 피해자의 뒤쪽으로 다가와 "뭐하냐? 아빠 왔는데 인사도 안 하냐?"라고 말하면서 갑자기 양손을 피해자의 양쪽 겨드랑이 안으로 넣어 가슴을 감싸 쥔 후 피해자를 들어 올렸다고 진술하였다. 피해자는 당시의 전후 상황, 피고인 A의 행위, 이에 대한 피해자의 반응, 피해자가 느낀 주관적인 감정 등에 관하여 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하였으며, 그 진술 내용에 특별

There is no unreasonable or unreasonable part or the statement itself and there is no inconsistency.

② The victim stated to the effect that he was friendly at the time of “the reason for memory of this part of the crime” in this court, and that he committed similar indecent acts even before Defendant A, and that he was subject to serious assault from Defendant A immediately after the indecent act was committed. Therefore, the victim’s motive and circumstance is sufficiently acceptable and there are no special doubtful circumstances.

③ The victim stated in this Court that “I Does you have come to a sofa,? I am?? I am? I am am? I am? I am? I am am? I am am? I am am? I am am? I am am? I am am am? I am am? I am you am am. I am you am a low report, and I am am. I am am. I am am. I am am. I am. I am. I am am. I am. I am. I am am. I am am. I am am.

④ 당시 상황을 목격한 증인 J은 이 법정에서 '그때 같이 노트북 하고 있었는데, 뒤에서 피해자를 들어 올려서 다른 방으로 갔다가 저보고 나가 있으라고 하고, 방문 닫고 쾅쾅 소리, 장롱에 부딪히는 그런 소리가 났다. 저는 거실에 앉아 있었다', '피해자가 소리 질렀었던 것 같다'라는 취지로 진술하여 범행 당시 상황에 관한 피해자의 진술과 상당 부분 부합한다. 아울러 증인 J은 '피고인 A이 피해자의 가슴을 만지는 것을 가끔 보았다', '장난처럼 거실에서 술을 마시다가 손으로 감싸 쥐듯이 만지거나 젖꼭지를 잡아당기거나 이런 일이 살면서 종종 있었다', '정도는 가슴 만지는 것 정도였고, 술 드시면 그러셨던 것 같다', '피고인 A의 행동으로 인해 피해자가 저한테도 부끄러워하고, 밤에 같이 얘기하면 힘들어했으며 다른 친구들한테 비밀로 해달라고 했다'라고 진술하였는데, 이 또한 피해자의 진술과 부합한다. 피해자가 아버지의 추행을 목격한 J에게 부끄러움을 느꼈고, 다른 친구들에게는 비밀로 해달라고 부탁했다는 J의 진술은 정형화된 사건 이상의 정보를 포함하고 있고, 구체적인 경험에 기초한 것으로 보여 신빙성이 높다. 아울러 증인 J의 이 법정에서의 진술 내용과 태도 등에 비추어 볼 때, J이 비록

Even in the case of the victim’s friendship, it is difficult to view that the victim took part in the sexual intercourse with the Defendant A who has no particular interest in bearing the risk of perjury. Meanwhile, the credibility of the statement cannot be rejected solely on the grounds that the statement by the J on other minor matters pointed out by the Defendant A and the defense counsel is somewhat inconsistent.

⑤ Defendant A’s motion picture report at the time at the prosecutor’s office refers to memory. At that time, Defendant A made the same act as the victim’s statement, such as the statement that she made her son and son and son’s son and son’s son and son’s son’s son’s son and son’s son’s son and son’s son were partly admitted. Defendant A asserts that both son and her son did not have the son’s son’s son’s son and did not commit an indecent act, but Defendant A’s son’s son’s son and son’s son’s son’s son’s son were not involved in an indecent act. However, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the victim’s consistent statement as to the son’s body and son’s son’s son’s son.

2) Defendant B

A) No. 2-A of the holding

① The victim consistently fell from investigative agency to investigation agency in 2009) and entered Defendant B’s children at the house of Defendant B with G on the day when it is impossible to know the date. At the time when Defendant B took care of his children at the house of Defendant B, the victim was able to take the hand of the victim who was diving by Defendant B, and put the victim’s hand above Defendant B’s inner panty, and the victim took the victim’s hand back again by taking the victim’s hand into the victim’s panty, putting the victim’s hand back to the victim’s panty, and the victim added the victim’s hand back to the victim’s second hand. The victim stated to the effect that the victim inserted his hand into the victim’s sound part after which the victim took advantage of the circumstances before and after committing the crime, the victim’s subjective and rational response to the victim’s act, and the part of the victim’s statement and its credibility at the time when the victim made the victim’s second son’s second son’s son was found to be inconsistent with the empirical rule.

② At the time of the commission of the crime from the investigative agency to this court, the victim stated that G had come from the house of the Defendant B at the time of the crime. On the other hand, G and the wife of the Defendant B stated to the effect that the victim and Q did not grow from the house of the Defendant B, and that there was no enemy. However, it would be difficult for the victim to memory at the time of the crime unless the victim was injured, and it would be difficult to dismiss the contents of the victim’s statement with G and Q’s statement in light of the records recording of meeting with the Defendants, and the relationship between the Defendants, it would be difficult to view the victim’s statement from the Defendant B to the point of view that it would be difficult for the victim to easily leave the victim’s statement from the Defendant B at the time of the crime. In particular, unlike the criminal facts of this part, it would be difficult to view that Q and Q were the victim’s birth at the time of the crime of this part, and that Q and Q were still likely to have come from the Defendant B’s own house at the time of the crime of this part.

④ The victim stated that this part of the crime was the initial indecent act committed by the Defendant B. The motive and circumstance leading up to the memory of the damage inflicted nine years prior to the Defendant B, the victim was so big, is sufficiently acceptable, and there are no special doubtful circumstances.

⑤ 피해자는 이 법정에서, 피고인 A에게 N으로 '아빠가 동생 때린 거랑 큰아빠, 할아 버지, 아빠 등등 나 성폭행한 것 다 고소할 거다'라는 취지의 메시지를 전송한 다음 날 피고인 B이 자신을 찾아온 상황과 관련하여 '그때 집에는 저랑 남동생 둘이 있었고, 한 10시에서 11시쯤에 피고인 B이 와서 동생이랑 저랑 TV 앞에 앉아보라고 한 다음에 "이런 부분은 너희가 잘못했고, 이것도 아빠가 잘못한 거다. 너희들 이제 아빠랑 더 이상 있으면 트러블이 될 것 같다."라고 했어요. 그리고 V에 집이 있었는데 그게 아직 안빠져서 빈집으로 있었어요. 그래서 “당분간은 거기서 지내는 게 좋을 것 같다."라고 해서 알겠다고 했어요. 그 다음에 그때 강아지가 있었는데, 동생보고 강아지 데리고 잠깐 밖에 나가 있으라고 한 다음에 동생이 나갔더니, “내가 그때 너한테 그렇게 했던 거는 정말로 미안하다. 내가 진짜 나쁜 놈이다."라고 용서를 구하시더라고요. 그래서 저는 그냥 묵묵히 듣고만 있고, “내가 V에서 지내게 해 줄 테니까 이 얘기는 진짜 어디 가서 하지 말아 달라."라고 그때도 악수하고 손가락 약속도 했던 것 같아요'라고 진술하였다. K은 이 법정에서 '피고인 A으로부터 폭행을 당한 다음 날 피고인 B이 집으로 왔다, ‘처음에 아빠랑 다툰 얘기를 하다가 나가서 어떻게 할 건지 그것도 얘기하다가 저 잠깐만 집 밖으로 나가보라고 해서 강아지 데리고 나갔어요', '얘기 끝난 후에 피고인 B과 누나로부터 얘기가 잘 됐다고 하면서 처음에는 V 쪽에 안 빠진 방이 있어서 거기로 가라고 했다가 방이 빠졌다고 하면서 보증금 500만 원 집을 알아보라고 했고, 거기가 그 당시 나가서 살게 되는 동대문 쪽에 그 방을 얻게 되었다', '피고인 B이 얻어준 방이었다', '방 얻어주기 전 그러니까 양지 집에서 나온 날 저녁에 누나랑 저랑 식당에서 밥을 먹고 술도 같이 먹었어요. 그런데 술 먹고 나서 누나가 갑자기 저한테 "옛날에 그런 일 당했다. 그래서 큰아빠가 이렇게 집을 얻어준 거다.” 그렇게 얘기했어요', '피해자가 W 초밥집에서 큰아빠가 방을 얻어준 얘기를 하면서 “큰아빠는 중학교 1학년 때 베이비시터 할 때 술 먹고 작은 방에서 성추행을 당했다.”라고 이야기했다'는 취지로 피해자의 진술과 일부 부합하는 진술을 하였다. 평소 피고인 B과 피해자 및 K 사이에 특별한 친분관계는 없었던 것으로 보이는 점을 고려할 때, 피고인 B이 오직 피해자 및 K과 피고인 A 사이의 갈등을 해결해 줄 생각으로 피해자에게 보증금 500만 원의 집을 구해줄 것으로 보기는 어려운 점, 피고인 B이 단지 피해자 및 K과 피고인 A 사이의 관계에 대해 이야기하는 상황이었다면 굳이 K을 집 밖으로 내보낸 다음 피해자와 단둘이 대화를 나눌 이유가 없는 점이에 대하여 피고인 B은 K이 피해자를 추행했던 과거의 일이 염려되어 피해자의 의사를 묻기 위함이었다고 주장하나, 피고인 B과 피해자 사이의 평소 관계를 고려할 때, 납득하기 어렵다), 피고인 B이 피해자와 K에게 집을 구해준 경위에 관한 피해자의 진술이 자연스럽고 합리적인 점 등을 고려할 때, 피해자의 이 부분 진술은 신빙성이 높다.

6) In this court, until the end of the day after receiving Defendant B’s death, the victim said that “ until the end of this court,” the victim would not have been able to file a complaint only by making it difficult to do so. The fact that the match still remains so big as to be satisfy, so it seems that the victim still satisfying his memory, and that it seems that it would be more parallel. Until that time, the large satisfy sat, but the large satisfy satisfy satt, and the direct satching and low satch satch directly, so it is difficult for the victim to think that the victim would have been satched without a twelbble, and that the victim would have been satched and satched, and that the victim's satch and satch satch satisfy, and that the victim's satisfy and satt sat.

B) No. 2-b of the holding

① The victim consistently testified from the investigative agency to this court to the date on which it is impossible to find out the date of 2009, along with G, to look at the children of Defendant B at the Defendant B’s house. At the time of Defendant B’s coming to move at the Defendant B’s house, around the same period, Defendant B attempted to look back the victim’s chest in the shape of X-ray, and the victim tried to look back the two arms in the shape of X-ray. At the time of the crime in this part, the victim stated to the effect that Defendant B tried to look back the victim’s chest continuously while having tried to look back the victim’s chest in the shape of X-ray. The victim stated to the effect that: (a) before and after the crime in this part; (b) before and after the act of Defendant B; (c) response of the victim; and (d) the victim’s subjective appraisal, etc.; and (c) there is no particular unreasonable or unreasonable part in the content of the statement or statement.

② 피해자는 이 법정에서 이 부분 범행 당시의 전후 상황과 관련하여 구체적으로 ‘침대에서 자고 있었는데, 그때 밤에 완전 새벽에 누가 제 위로 올라오는 느낌이 나서 바로 깼어요. 그런데 큰아빠가 되게 당황한 게 보였어요. 갑자기 새벽에 다 자고 있는데, X 기저귀 어디 있는지 아느냐." 그렇게 말해서 '아, 큰아빠가 또 나한테 좀 그러려나? 어떻게 해 보려는 건가?' 하고...', '그때 저도 이해가 안 가는 게 큰엄마도 그때 계셨는데 하필 왜 저한테 물어보는지 그게 이해가 안 갔어요', '그래서 제가 밖으로 뛰쳐나갔더니 큰아빠가 왔어요. 그때 비가 엄청 왔는데 화장실 문을 열더니, 화장실 끝 부분에 작은 창문이 있었는데, 거기를 짚으면서 비가 오나 안 오나 한 번 확인을 해보라고, 화장실에 들어가 보라고 했는데, 저는 문 잠그고 어떻게 할까봐 무서워서 싫다고 했는데, 바로 앞에 있는 현관문을 열더니, 누가 봐도 비가 오고 있었는데, “밖에 비가 오냐.", “밖에 나가 봐라. 막 횡설수설 하시길래 그때 눈물이 나왔어요. 그래서 울었더니 갑자기 진정이 좀 되셨나 봐요. 주방에 싱크대 앞에 앉아보라고 해서 앉았더니, “내가 미안하다. 잠깐 정신이 나갔었던 것 같다. 아무한테도 말하지 말라. 내가 닌텐도 사주겠다. 아니면 용돈을 주겠다.” 그러시더라고요. 아무한테도 말하지 말아달라고 손가락 약속까지 했어요'라고 진술하였다. 피해자의 이 부분 진술은 직접 경험한 사람만이 진술할 수 있을 만큼 구체적이고 상세하다. 특히 피고인 B이 피해자를 추행하려다 피해자가 잠에서 깨자 당황하면서 기저귀를 찾았다는 부분, 피해자가 당시에도 Q도 있었는데 하필 왜 자신한테 물어보는지 이해가 안 갔다는 부분, 피고인 B의 추행을 피해 방 밖으로 뛰쳐나갔더니 피고인 B이 쫓아와서는 화장실 문을 열고서는 화장실로 들어와 비가 오나 확인해보라고 했다는 부분, 피해자가 싫다고 하자 피고인 B이 현관문을 열더니 밖에 나가보라면서 횡설수설하였다는 부분, 피해자가 울자 진정한 피고인 B이 사과를 하면서, 닌텐도를 사주고, 용돈을 주겠다고 한 부분, 아무한테도 말하지 말라고 손가락 약속까지 하였다는 부분에 대한 피해자의 개별적이고 상세한 진술은 범행 당시의 일반적이지 않은 특수한 경험으로서 도저히 허위로 꾸며내었다고 볼 수 없을 만큼 생생하다. 그리고 위 진술은 피고인 B의 범행 당시의 비정상적인 행동 양식, 긴박한 상황 및 범행을 중단하게 된 경위 등에 대하여 구체적으로 묘사하고 있고, 피해자가 묘사한 피고인 B의 행동은 은밀하고 교묘한 방식과는 거리가 먼 것인데, 이에 비추어 보더라도 피해자가 허위의 사실을 꾸며낸 것으로 보기는 더욱 어려우며, 이 사건 범행 자체의 비합리적인 성격에 비추어 볼 때 피해자의 이 부분 진술 내용이 특별히 경험칙에 비추어 비합리적이거나 모순된다고 보이지도 않는다.이 부분 범행 당시의 긴박한 상황, 날씨, 닌텐도 및 손가락 약속과 같은 특수한 경험, 피해자가 피고인 B으로부터 당한 성폭력범죄가 2차례에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피해자가 큰아빠인 피고인 B으로부터 약 9년 전에 당하였던 이 부분 피해 사실을 기억하는 동기 및 경위도 충분히 수긍할 수 있고 특별히 의심스러운 정황이 없다. ④ 앞서 본 바와 같이 피해자가 피고인 B을 처벌받도록 하기 위해 오래전에 있었던 피해사실을 허위로 꾸며 진술할 만한 동기나 이유를 찾아보기 어렵다. 나아가 피해자가 피고인 B의 집에서 잠을 잔 경위, 피고인 B이 피해자와 K에게 집을 구해준 경위와 과정 및 피고인 B의 사과를 받은 후의 피해자의 심리상태 및 상황 등에 관한 피해자의 진술은 신빙성이 높고, 자연스럽다.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to five years up to up to June 22;

(b) Scope6 of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria; and

1. Basic crime: Crimes of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

[Determination of Kind] General Standard Indecent Act (subject to the age of 13 or older) (Indecent act by force, such as by force or by force, by force, by house intrusion, etc. by relative relation)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 2 years to 5 years

2) Concurrent Crimes: Offenses of Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (Minor Rape, etc. under the age of 13)* no sentencing guidelines is set. However, for proper sentencing, this paper examines the scope of recommendations on the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts, etc.

[Determination of Type 3] General Standard of Sex Offenses subject to Age 13 (Indecent Act by Compulsion)

【Special Exemplarys] Where the degree of indecent conduct is weak (1, 3 types)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, 2 years and 6 years to 5 years. Determination of sentence

Defendant A committed each of the crimes under paragraph (1) of the judgment against the victim who is a friendship, by taking advantage of the sentiment such as the relationship between the victim and the victim's awareness and awareness about relatives. Sexual assault by blood is highly likely to be criticized as it goes against humanity. Defendant A, who is responsible for specially protecting and fostering the victim, rather than whose father and wife is the victim, commits each of the crimes of this case, which is extremely poor. The victim appears to have been under serious mental shock after the damage of this case. The victim seems to have been under serious mental shock. The victim visited the hospital on a regular basis for the treatment of depression, and the above crimes of Defendant A are considered to have had significant influence on the outbreak and aggravation of depression by the victim. Defendant A did not reflect his own act, but rather argued that the victim was guilty of having committed a fraudulent act. The victim caused secondary damage to the victim by asserting that the victim was guilty of the victim. The victim is also the victim of the victim’s previous offense against Defendant A, a person with disabilities, in addition to the above crimes against the disabled.

However, on January 7, 2013, when a judgment has become final and conclusive on January 7, 2013, the principle of equity should be taken into account in cases where a judgment has been rendered concurrently with the crime committed against the victim under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against his/her father, and other conditions of sentencing as stated in the records and arguments of this case, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, method and circumstances after the crime

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to five years up to up to June 22;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crimes: Offenses of Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (Minor Rape, etc. under the age of 13)* Criteria for sentencing is not set. However, for proper sentencing, this paper examines the scope of recommendations in the sentencing guidelines for offenses against the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the scope of recommendations in sentencing guidelines

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for Sex Offenses subject to the Age of 13

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 6 years to 9 years

2) Concurrent Crimes: Crimes of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (limited to relative relation)* no sentencing guidelines is set. However, for an appropriate sentencing, this paper examines the scope of recommendations given in the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent act by blood relation)

[Determination of Kind] General Standard Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act.

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 2 years to 5 years. Determination of sentence

Defendant B committed each of the crimes set forth in paragraph (2) of the judgment against kysian victims. A sexual crime by blood is highly likely to be subject to criticism because it goes against humanity. Defendant B, who is responsible for specially protecting a victim who is more relative, rather than one, committed each of the crimes of this case by taking the victim into sexual lives into account the method and circumstances thereof, is highly likely to be subject to criticism. The victim appears to have been subject to serious mental shock after the damage of this case. The victim visits the hospital on a regular basis for the treatment of lives, takes medicine, and appears to have had significant impact on each of the above crimes committed by Defendant B. Defendant B appears to have not complied with his own act, but rather argued that the victim was false for the purpose of money, thereby causing secondary damage to the victim. The victim is hysinging Defendant B with severe punishment. The victim is inevitable.

However, the defendant B has no same criminal history, and the age, character and conduct, environment, method and circumstances of the crime, etc. of the defendant B, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the same as the order.

Judgment on the request for attachment order

1. A summary of the cause of claim;

A. A person subject to a request to attach an attachment order, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the instant case, committed a sexual crime against a victim of age sexual intercourse as indicated in the crime of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and committed an indecent act by force against other children. A person subject to a request to attach an attachment order, is likely to recommit a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19 years by committing a sexual crime twice or more, and thus, it is necessary to attach an electronic tracking device.

B. A person subject to a request for attachment order B, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the instant case, committed a sexual crime against a victim of age-based kinship, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the same Article. A person subject to a request for attachment order B, who committed a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19, on at least two occasions, is likely to recommit a sexual crime, and thus, is in need of the attachment of an electronic tracking device.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

The risk of recidivism of a sexual crime as prescribed by Article 5(1) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders means that the possibility of recidivism is insufficient solely on the basis of the possibility of recidivism, and that there is a probable probability that the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device would injure the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future. The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device, the conduct prior to the relevant crime, the motive, means, circumstances after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the appearance, etc., of the person subject to the order to attach an electronic device, and such determination shall be based on the time of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do337, Apr.

(b) A person for whom an attachment order is requested;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the prosecutor alone committed a sex crime again in the future beyond the possibility of re-offending by the person against whom the attachment order is requested to A.

It is difficult to conclude that there is considerable probability.

① The electronic monitoring system under the Electronic Monitoring Act is a kind of security measure aimed at protecting citizens from sexual crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5813, 2011Do99, Jul. 28, 201). As such, the provisions that prescribe the requirements for requesting an attachment order shall be strictly construed and applied in a manner that minimizes the infringement of fundamental rights as far as possible.

② As a result of the inspection conducted by the Korea E-SORAS on a sex offender A, the risk of recidivism falls under the level of "high" but falls under the level of "high (13-29 points)" at the level of "high (13-29 points)" at the level of "high (13-29 points in total," as a result of the evaluation conducted by a person who requested an attachment order for the sex offender A, the risk of recidivism in the previous investigation report is also high or middle.

(3) Although a person against whom an order to attach an attachment was requested falls under the same criminal records [the crime of violation of the Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent act by force in relation to relatives)], all of the crimes including the crime in this case do not commit any sexual crime against an unspecified general public.

(4) Where this judgment becomes final and conclusive, personal information registration, completion of sexual assault treatment programs, etc. shall be expected to have a significant effect on preventing recidivism of A, promoting rehabilitation of a person who requests an attachment order, and correcting his/her character and behavior in the future.

(5) In full view of the content and method of the instant crime, the age, occupation, family environment, and social relationship of a person subject to the request for an attachment order, etc., evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that it is highly probable that a person subject to the request for an attachment order would injure the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the prosecutor alone committed a sex crime again in the future beyond the possibility of recommitting the person to whom the attachment order was requested, by means of evidence submitted by the prosecutor

It is difficult to conclude that there is considerable probability.

① The electronic monitoring system under the Electronic Monitoring Act is a kind of security measure aimed at protecting citizens from sexual crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5813, 2011Do99, Jul. 28, 201). As such, the provisions that prescribe the requirements for requesting an attachment order shall be strictly construed and applied in a manner that minimizes the infringement of fundamental rights as far as possible.

② As a result of the inspection conducted by the Korea E-SORAS on a sex offender B, the risk of recidivism falls under the level of ‘highness of recidivism', but falls under the level of ‘highness of recidivism' (13-29 points in total) at the level of ‘highness of recidivism' at the level of 14 points in total, and the risk of recidivism as a result of the evaluation conducted by the selecter of a mental disorder (PC-R), the risk of recidivism in the previous investigation report is also the intermediate level.

(3) There is no same criminal history against B who is requested to attach an attachment order, and the crime of this case is committed on the basis of personal relations with the victim, and it does not commit any sexual crime against an unspecified general public.

(4) If this judgment becomes final and conclusive, it is expected that the registration of personal information, completion of sexual assault treatment programs, etc. will have a significant effect on the prevention of recidivism B by the person who requested the attachment order, the promotion of rehabilitation, and the correction of character and behavior in the future.

(5) In full view of the content and method of the instant crime, the age, occupation, family environment, and social relationship of the person against whom the attachment order was requested, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is highly probable that the person B, who requested the attachment order, commits a sex crime again in the future, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for the attachment order of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 9 (4) 1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the ground that it is not reasonable.

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Gin-young

It does not require the procedures for Amendments to Bill of Indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 201617679, Jan. 25, 2017); the date and time of the offense committed by Defendant B is the victim.

A. The same is in conformity with the fact that the defendant B's children come to the house of the defendant B, the circumstances and method of the crime, and the victim

The content of damage is not changed, and the date and time of the crime stated in the facts charged are dependent on the statement about the work experienced by the victim 9 years prior to the date of the crime.

Therefore, the date and time of crime can be revised so as to avoid inconsistency with the relevant witness’s statements and Defendant B’s albane argument.

Defendant B also stated that the date and time of the crime appears to be the case in 2009, and all of the facts charged are described as the case in 2009.

The court's final judgment on the criminal facts was made in the trial proceedings, with the knowledge that it was time to look at the children of Goman B.

of the facts charged, excluding the date and time of the crime, is not modified, thereby resulting in a new criminal fact that Defendant B was not expected to do so.

It is not determined by the trial, and the defendant B is given the opportunity to guarantee the substantial right of defense for the criminal facts in this part through the trial procedure.

to revise ex officio the date and time of a crime, comprehensively taking into account the following.

2) L, a hearing consultation with the victim, stated in this Court that the victim’s above response is not in a natural sense.

3) The victim stated the date and time of this part of the crime from August 2009 to September 2009 in an investigative agency and this court. As seen earlier, the victim stated that this part of the crime was dead from August 2009.

Inasmuch as this part of the crime was experienced by the victim nine (9) years prior to the occurrence of the crime, it is not clear to memory as to the detailed date of the crime.

Now we cannot see this part of the crime. The victim sees the children of the defendant B at the house of the defendant B, together with the words.

Defendant B made a clear statement that he was sexually committed by Defendant B, and the relevant witness’s statement and Defendant B’s know-how

The interval between the date and time of the crime that reflects the head of the crime is not significant. Accordingly, there are some errors in specifying the date and time of the crime.

The credibility of the victim's statement cannot be rejected solely for such reasons.

4) According to the record on August 7, 2009, which was submitted by Defendant B on August 9, 2009 (Evidence No. 15 of the Evidence List), Defendant B from July 2009 to September 9, 200

The schedule can be seen as being a delivery to S, which is the first delivery place, by 12:15 (Standard Hours) after the regular work at the R Distribution Center. The victims may be the victim.

A statement that he had been sexually committed from Goman B around the same period of time is distinguished from the accurate view of the crime that occurred nine years prior to the victim.

As alleged by the victim, it is difficult to expect that the defendant B will commit a sexual crime against the victim and deliver it on the A.I.D.

Considering the fact that extinguishing a schedule is not physically impossible, the statement made by the victim is solely based on such circumstance.

No reliability may be rejected.

5) G with low-income children may sleep with them on the floor.

6) This part of the crime is not applied to the sentencing criteria as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but is examined as reference for proper sentencing.