logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고합272
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 20, 2013, the Defendant was living in front of the entrance of the entrance of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul apartment house C, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul around June 2013, and was asked to lend 1,000 won due to the lack of rent from the victim D (the age of 16) who was a juvenile, and was asked to request the victim to pay 1,000 won due to the lack of rent, and the victim was able to pay 1,000 won on her hand, and the Defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A E-document;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Article 7 (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and Article 298 of the Criminal Act, the selection of applicable laws and punishment for the crime;

2. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse.

4. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

5. Article 21 (2) and (5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

6. The proviso of Article 49(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse / The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the influence of under the influence of alcohol after leaving his/her job, with a vehicle borrowed from his/her car, and with the victim’s shockingly breath, and with the victim’s horse, it is difficult to conclude that there is a habit and danger of sexual assault as there is no record of punishment including the instant crime except for the instant crime. Therefore, it is unnecessary to impose security measures such as disclosure and notification order. On the other hand, the Defendant was living together with and supported by his/her spouse and unmarried children, and the Defendant was supported by his/her spouse and unmarried children, and as a result of the written request for disclosure and notification, the victim also sought disclosure and notification order from the Defendant.

arrow