beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unfasible and unfair.
2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, where the Defendant, who is obliged to protect students from sexual crimes and educate students so that they can grow with a healthy sexual concept, committed an indecent act by force on two occasions by taking advantage of the superior status as a driving school instructor, and the nature of the crime is not good. At the time, the victim who was a high school student at the time seems to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the instant case.
On the other hand, the defendant recognized all the crimes and divided his mistake in depth, the victim and his legal representative have not been punished by the defendant under the agreement with the defendant. The defendant is a primary offender who has no criminal experience, the degree of tangible power exercised by the defendant is difficult to view that the defendant is serious. The defendant seems to have faithfully served as an instructor of a private teaching institute for about 20 years, and has maintained a very close relationship with some students, and the defendant has maintained emotionally close relationship with some students. The defendant has filed a written application for a written appeal against the defendant's preference.
In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).
It does not appear.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.