logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2016.12.13 2016노136 (1)
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등간음)등
Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant did not arrange the instant sexual traffic, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of attending the sexual assault therapy, 120 hours of community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable as it is too uneasible. 2) The lower court’s failure to issue an order to disclose and notify personal information to Defendant A, even though the disadvantages and side effects caused by the disclosure and notification order to Defendant A, do not exceed the benefits and preventive effects expected therefrom.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant conspired with and could sufficiently recognize the fact of arranging sexual traffic, according to the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. 2) In addition to the circumstances recognized by the lower court, in addition to the circumstances recognized by the lower court in the lower court, K stated in the following circumstances, namely, that “B would have found the Defendant to have taken part in A’s act of arranging sexual traffic, thereby going to the lower court,” and that “B would have taken advantage of the fact that the Defendant had taken part in A’s act of arranging sexual traffic.” Of approximately 50 times of sexual traffic, the lower court did not appear first when the Defendant and A s/he participated in several questions as to whether it was several times.

arrow