beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 1 million won of fine and 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) of the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below is deemed reasonable and it is too heavy in view of the fact that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was the first offender, but the Defendant denied the crime immediately after the crime in this case, and rather, made a statement that the victim was the first offender while denying the crime, and that the Defendant was a planned crime in light of the fact that the Defendant had diesel.
The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities ( December 11, 2018), Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, effective June 12, 2019, applies to persons who committed sex offenses before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.
The crime of quasi-indecent act in this case constitutes a sex offense to which the above provision applies, and this court should decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant.
In light of the Defendant’s age, criminal record, family environment, social relationship, details and motive of the offense, method of and consequence of the offense, the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the preventive effect of the sex crime that may be achieved therefrom, the effect of the victim protection, the possibility of recidivism, etc., the lower judgment that did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant under the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act should be maintained as it is, in its entirety.
4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.