logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.01.16 2013노3259
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant case and the part regarding the case regarding which the request for attachment order was filed.

Despite Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, this part was excluded from the scope of the trial of the court, as there was no benefit in appeal as to the part of the claim for attachment order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611 delivered on January 18, 1983). 2. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to issue an unfair disclosure disclosure order to the Defendant.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of disclosure disclosure order, Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse stipulate that an order shall be issued to disclose and notify information of a person who committed a sexual crime against a child or juvenile at the same time, and exceptionally, such order shall not be given.

However, in light of the type, motive, process, consequence, and gravity of the crime of this case, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed when comprehensively considering the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months at the Suwon District Court on February 24, 2012 to imprisonment for a quasi-indecent act by force; (b) the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended sentence; (c) the disadvantages and expected side effects of the Defendant due to the disclosure order; (d) the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disclosure order; and (e) the effectiveness of the prevention of sexual crimes against children and juveniles

arrow