(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.09.21 2016노210 | 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 2016.09.21 2016노210

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등간음)등

Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for attachment order even if the Defendant’s rejection of the request for attachment order is found to pose a risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. As to the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment so far, and the Defendant agreed with the legal representative of the JJ for the missing child in the past trial, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant moving away from December 2, 2014 to July 2015 to his or her own residence, providing accommodation, and committing sexual intercourse and indecent act by exercising power against some victims. In light of the method of crime, etc., the crime of this case is very poor. The defendant was investigated by the police as a violation of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc., and committed indecent act and sexual intercourse immediately after he or she was investigated by the police, and even after he or she was under investigation by the crime of this case, he or she was sexual intercourse with other female juveniles. Although the victims other than J et al. or missing children did not receive a letter from their parents, the defendant did not have to have a deposit of KRW 10 million each for the victim H and K at the trial, but the defendant clearly expressed that the above parents did not have any such agreement in favor of the victim.

(2)

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.11.23 2018노2168

-부산고등법원 2016.08.17 2016노371

-서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2018노116

-서울고등법원 2016.04.28 2016노136

-부산고등법원 2018.05.30 2018노90