2014Do7267 A. Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Recognition of Rape)

violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

(B) 【Blue of Fraudulent Means】

(b) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (rape-rape, etc.);

(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes;

User photographing)

(d) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act by Compulsion);

(e) Violation of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc.;

2014.(Joints) Attachment Orders

Persons whose attachment order is requested;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorney V (National Assembly Line)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Do724, 2014 Jeonno109 (Joint) Decided May 22, 2014

Judgment

August 20, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sexual intercourse, such as deceptive scheme) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in this case where the defendant and the respondent for an order of arrival order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") were sentenced to a lower sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the case of the claim for attachment order

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the defendant has a risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Cho Jong-hee