Defendant

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

In this case.

1. Reasons for appeal and summary of application for adjudication on unconstitutionality of law

A. The reasoning of the appeal against the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order, and 10 years of order to attach an electronic tracking device) is too unreasonable. 2) The Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, stipulating that a person under the age of 13 shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than five years or by a fine of not less than 30 million won, but not more than 50 million won, who committed indecent acts under Article 298 of the Criminal Act, shall be punished by the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”).

Article 7(3)(hereinafter “this case’s legal provision”) is applicable to indecent acts by assault itself recognized as an indecent act, and thus, the relationship with the offense of indecent act by compulsion under the Criminal Act is unclear, and it is contrary to the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without the law and is likely to violate the legitimacy, balance and equality of the punishment system.

In addition, the punishment provided by the legal provision of this case is in violation of the principle of prohibition of excessive legislation because it is excessively excessive compared to the punishment of rape, notwithstanding the various forms of conduct of indecent act.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty portion of the lower judgment) Defendant confessions the fact that the Defendant committed indecent act by force in the ward located in the house where the Defendant had resided before divorce at the time from April 2014 to July 2014 (the period of leave of the Defendant, who is a seafarer), and the victim’s statement at the investigative agency is sufficient to be corroborative evidence supporting that the confession of the Defendant is true. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no supporting evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession (the acquittal portion of the lower judgment on the part of the lower court’s judgment). Moreover, the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that there is no supporting evidence supporting the facts charged.