logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.09.24 2014노1156
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 4 million won of fine, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy, and confiscation) which the court below sentenced against the defendant is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. The crime of this case is committed against the Defendant, in a situation where: (a) the Defendant was hidden in a female toilet for 1 hour and 30 minutes at night; (b) the Defendant took a dynamic image with a cell phone in view of the content and time of taking pictures; and (c) the number of victims; (d) the Defendant appears to have caused the victims to feel sexual humiliation and mental shock; and (b) the possibility of infringing on privacy through the development of electronic devices, such as images, is considerably increased; and (c) the Defendant’s strict punishment for the crime of taking another’s body by using the said devices is required to meet the sexual desire.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is divided into and reflected against the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant does not want the punishment against the defendant under an agreement with the victim E whose identity is revealed, the defendant does not leak the photographed images that have been removed and attached to the video, the defendant has no criminal record other than the fine one time, and the fact that the defendant is in a state of absence of income due to his/her actual employment.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that lead to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, and there is no change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the original judgment and the sentence, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

arrow