beta
Cases
2020Do18284 A. Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (obscenity)
Production, Distribution, etc.)
(b) Information and Communications Network Promotion Act;
Violations
(c) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;
(2)
(d)Violation of the Child Welfare Act;
Sexual harassment, etc.
200 Before the 2020 Do 182 (Joint Attachment Orders)
Defendant and the requester for an attachment order
C
Appellant
Defendant and the respondent for attachment order
Defense Counsel
Attorney Hong-gu (Korean)
The judgment below
Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2020No94, (Chuncheon) 2020 No94 decided December 9, 2020
9(Joint), (Chuncheon) 2020 Jeonno10(Joint) Judgment
Imposition of Judgment
March 11, 2021
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Defendant case
Examining various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, and environment of the Defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal, it is extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court which sentenced the Defendant a maximum of ten years and a short of five years to the Defendant.
2. As to the case of the claim for attachment order
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, and to maintain the first instance judgment that imposed the obligation, as it is, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Judges
Justices Kim Jong-hwan
Justices Park Sang-ok
Justices Ansan-chul et al.
Justices Noh Jeong-hee