성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal - Sentencing
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (4 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the program) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). The instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant attempted to rape the victim who is a mother, and the relationship with the victim; (b) the relationship with the victim of the failed crime; (c) the nature of the crime and the liability for the crime is heavy; (d) the victim has a great sense of sexual humiliation and mental suffering; (c) his family member suffering from the victim’s suffering from a sense of sexual humiliation; and (d) the Defendant was unable to use the victim’s family member.
However, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant reflects the crime, that there was no record of crime except the punishment for suspended sentence before 35 years elapsed, and that the defendant seems to have been relatively limited to the victim before the crime in this case is committed.
In full view of the above circumstances and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court.
Since the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or uneasible, and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair, the argument that the sentencing of the Defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is rejected in all.
3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.