logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.10.18 2013고정1795
공연음란
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 18:35 on September 13, 2012, the Defendant openly committed an obscene act, such as reporting the side, reporting the side, and exposing the sexual organ by hand, and exposing it, while going back to the third floor large-scale room in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 618-496, in front of B(49).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of B’s written laws and regulations;

1. Article 245 of the Criminal Act and Article 245 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order include the content of obscene acts committed by the Defendant, the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and the confession of the instant crime, and the circumstances, means, methods, and results of the instant crime, and the sentence as ordered shall be determined in full view.

In principle, insofar as a court declares the conviction of a fine against a defendant who committed a sexual crime regarding the imposition of an order to complete a program, it shall impose an order to complete a program, in principle (Article 16(2) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes), but the summary order of the instant case did not impose an order to complete a program, etc. on the defendant, and only the defendant applied for formal trial, so the order to complete a program is not imposed pursuant to the principle prohibiting disadvantageous changes under Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8736, Sept. 27, 201

arrow