logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.17 2015노905
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical disability by drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant indecent act by compulsion.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in August, and forty hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background of the crime of indecent act by force, the Defendant’s behavior or attitude before and after the crime of indecent act by force, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was a principal state at the time of the crime of indecent act by force, but there was no ability for the Defendant to discern things or make decisions by force by force

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records and arguments, including the contents of the instant crime, the degree of indecent act by force, and the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times as a crime with violent inclinations, etc., considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, even if the Defendant repaid the amount of damage to the victim of the fraudulent act, even if the Defendant was in the first instance trial, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, according to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the phrase “Article 30” in Section 10 of the judgment of the court below is deleted and the phrase “Article 347(1)” and “Article 298” in the same manner are inserted.

arrow