2019No1848 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "ameras"), bodily injury

A

Prosecutor

The hand name (prosecution) and Kim Jong-in (public trial)

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Da6426 Decided March 28, 2019

July 5, 2019

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing has exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

B. Ex officio determination on an employment restriction order

According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019), Article 59-3(1) of the aforementioned Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the above Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment. As such, this court should examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an order to restrict employment to welfare facilities for disabled persons

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, the risk of recidivism, family environment, social relationship, the details and motive of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage caused by the employment restriction order; (c) the prevention and effect of the sex offense that may be achieved by such order; and (d) the effect of the protection of victims, etc., there are special circumstances where the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled should not be imposed; (b) the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso of

3. Conclusion

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it has no reason to appeal.

Judge Song-soo, Justice Song-soo

Effective quantity of the judge

Judges Lee Jin-hee