(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.19 2016노92 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.19 2016노92

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입준강제추행)등

Text

The judgment below

The part of the case of the attachment order shall be reversed.

A location tracking shall be conducted by the person who requested the attachment order for a period of ten years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the risk of recidivism by the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is not significant, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 20 years.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and various circumstances favorable to the defendant, which were shown in the proceedings of the court below and the trial court at the court below (the defendant all committed the crime in this case and divided his errors).

The facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim did not want to be punished against the defendant. The defendant did not want to be punished against the defendant by excessive agreement of the victims except for the victim R, deposit KRW 100,000 to the victim R, most of the stolen articles were returned to the victims, and the victim's high-priced articles were not much damaged or stolen) and various unfavorable circumstances (the crime of this case was committed within the short period of four months from March 17, 2015 to July 16, 2015, as shown in the judgment of the court below, in other words, various 13 criminal acts as shown in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, which were committed by the defendant due to intrusion upon the Mael room or business establishment as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The defendant committed the crime of this case, which committed an indecent act again prior to the crime of this case by infringing upon another person's residence, and which had already been punished.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2016.06.09 2016노204

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.04.11 2017노186

-부산고등법원 2016.03.17 2015노637

-부산고등법원 2017.04.13 2017노79

-부산고등법원 2016.03.31 2015노745