logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2014.06.24 2014노73
강간미수등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. An order to disclose or notify an unfair disclosure or notification order is intended to protect the victim of a sexual crime by systematically managing the sexual offender, and even if the victim had the intent to not want punishment against the defendant, it is not smaller than the means and method of the instant crime, the defendant's attitude of reflectivity, the benefits expected to be expected to be given by the imposition of the disclosure or notification order and the preventive effect of the defendant's disadvantage or side effect that the defendant suffered.

In light of the circumstances such as the need to issue an order of disclosure and notification in order to achieve the penal purpose of the defendant's edification and recidivism, it is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the defendant from the order of disclosure and notification of the registered personal information of the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, social relationship, criminal records and the risk of recidivism (no record of punishment for the same crime), the victim’s intent not to punish the Defendant, benefits and the effect of preventing disclosure and notification, and disadvantages and side effects that may be inflicted on the victim, etc., and that the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed. 2) According to the proviso to Article 47(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which applies mutatis mutandis to the judgment of the lower court, the lower court determined that there were special circumstances where disclosure of personal information is prohibited.”

arrow