beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, 3 years of restriction on employment, and 1 capital increase) is too uneasy and unreasonable.
2. The lower court sentenced the forfeiture of subparagraph 1 of evidence, which is an object provided for the instant crime, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as an object of the instant crime, voluntarily produced on April 5, 2019 (Evidence 98) and submitted a list of seized articles and the list of seized articles was not submitted. However, even though the confiscation is not necessarily limited to the seized articles, it is a seizure of the articles subject to forfeiture, and the fact that the articles were seized through lawful procedures is not a requirement of forfeiture (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do3263, Sept. 4, 2014; 2003Do705, May 30, 2003).
It is recognized that the defendant, using a cell phone in a Mat used by the public and hospital, took a dynamic image such as the victim's appearance or the appearance of clothes, etc. using his cell phone, in light of the place, method and part of shooting, which is not suitable for such crime, and that the defendant was not able to receive from the victims.
However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant is divided into and against one’s own crimes; (b) the Defendant appears to have not caused damage, such as the spread of images taken by the Defendant by committing a crime in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras Use and Screening); (c) the Defendant is a primary offender; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and other sentencing conditions, the sentence of the lower court is too uneas
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the third party of the judgment of the court below shall be "1.1.1."