logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.11.09 2018고단1581
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적공공장소침입)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 1, 2018, the Defendant intruded into a public toilet with a view to satisfying his/her sexual desire by smugglinging his/her face in a crehion of the victim D (e.g., 24 years old) who had reported urines in the above toilet side column on March 1, 2018, in order to steals the appearance of the victim D (e.g., the victim 24 years old) who had reported urines in the above toilet side column and windows.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the victim;

1. Application of investigation reports (on-site inspections, etc.) and statutes governing site photographs;

1. Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Selection of Fines concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. In light of the reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the contents of the crime in this case, and the mental impulse that the victim had experienced, etc., the case is not easy. On the other hand, there is no criminal history against the defendant, and all other circumstances revealed in the records of this case and the theory of changes, the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation, existence of history of sex offense, details and motive of the offense, method of committing the offense, severity of the offense, etc., under the proviso to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, there are special circumstances in which the risk of re-offending is significantly low or employment is not restricted pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1)

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant.

arrow