beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence (such as three years of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant committed the instant crime regarding the part of the Defendant’s case is that: (a) the Defendant met the negative part of the victim who is a child; (b) kid himself/herself in the victim’s entrance; and (c) putting the victim in the drafting, thereby sexually abusing the victim and committing indecent acts by force.
The court below considered that the victim is only six years of age, that the degree of indecent act is not easy, that the victim seems to have caused considerable mental shock and sense of shame, that there is a possibility that the victim might have adversely affected the formation of sound sexual values in the future, that the defendant was unable to take advantage of the victim or his parents, and that the defendant all of the crime of this case is recognized, that the crime of this case is not planned, and that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case is somewhat contingent, and that the defendant is presumed to have committed the crime of this case, that the defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment including sexual crimes, that the defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, that is, the family register, and that social relationship is obvious, and determined the punishment against the defendant by taking account of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee
If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial.
The above circumstances cited by the court below are as follows.