beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A, B, and D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of four years, for a short of three years, and Defendant C and E.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ punishment (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with a maximum of four years of imprisonment, a short of three years, and 40 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. (1) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
(2) The crime of this case committed in violation of an order to disclose or disclose personal information is unfair to exempt the Defendants from the order to disclose or disclose personal information, in light of the details and details of the crime, and the Defendants’ flight habits, etc.
2. We examine ex officio the reasoning of appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor prior to determining ex officio (restricted order on employment).
Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for a sex offense against children, juveniles, or adults, stipulates that Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018 and who have not been finally determined, taking into account the seriousness of the offense and the risk of recidivism, etc.
The instant sexual crime constitutes “sex offenses against children and juveniles” to which Article 56 of the above Amendment Act applies, and at the same time the judgment of the instant case and the judgment of the court below, issued an employment restriction order against the Defendants. As such, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.