2017Gohap462 A. Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (similar act)

6)

(b) Injury caused by heavy confinement;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(e) Magion;

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(g) Injury;

(h) coercion;

(i) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault)

(j) Violence;

1. A. (c) Maba, Maba, Ij. A

2.b. d. f. B

3.b. o.b.i.c. C

The doorline (prosecution), Kim Heavy (Trial)

Law Firm D (for Defendant A)

Attorney E

Attorney F (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Law Firm G (Defendant C)

Attorney H, I

July 20, 2017

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of six years, a short term of five years, and a term of three years, a short term of two years, and a term of two years, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant C, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Probation of Defendant C and community service for 120 hours shall be ordered respectively.

Defendant A shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

Criminal facts

Defendant A was aware of the family kid with the victim J (17 years of age) and the elementary school and middle school and the Dong, and Defendant B was aware of the victim through each Defendant A around November 2016, around 2016. Defendant A was aware of the victim’s her family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family kid with the victim’s family nas

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

From November 1, 2016 to February 14, 2017, Defendants jointly assaulted the victim on a total of 13 occasions, such as the following 4,7 through 12, 14 through 18, and 20, on the ground that the victim did not comply with the victim’s promise, Defendant B met the victim’s knick at hand. Defendant A and Defendant C assaulted the victim at approximately 20 to 30 minutes by drinking the body of the victim. From then to then on February 14, 2017, Defendants jointly assaulted the victim on a total of 13 occasions, such as the victim’s list No. 1, 7 through 12, 14 through 18, and 20.

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

On December 18, 2016, at around 18:00, the Defendants jointly carried the victim’s house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B asked the victim to take an examination her face with him/her, and to take the victim’s scam at his/her seat and take cash into her face, and then the victim scambling with 100,000 won with her mother’s Handbage check from her mother’s Handbag to her mother’s Handbag and bring 100,000 won into the check, and then the Defendants jointly carried the victim’s total amount of KRW 80,000 from the victim’s total amount of KRW 20,000,00,000 from the day to February 18, 2017, as indicated in attached Table 24 and 9.

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

After allowing the victims to take full advantage of the victim, the Defendants adopted a mutual resolution to take money in the name of agreement when they are damaged by indecent acts by compulsion, etc. from the same-sexs by leaving the same-sexs in the ‘Mari' nearby the Lone Station, a man-only dedicated to men who mainly use the same-sexs.

On February 14, 2017, at least 18:20 on February 14, 2017, the Defendants jointly forced the victims, who are frightened, to drink 2 sicks, to drink 3 times in the discharge house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and threaten the victims to drink 3 times in the discharge house located in the densely-populated area.

(d) Injury caused by heavy confinement;

At around 20:00 on February 18, 2017, the Defendants conspired to sell to the said abandoned house for about six (6) days from the time of opening the house in Seocho-gu Seoul, Defendant B, “I am locked and live together here. I do not think where I want to flee. If I am am, I am am shot and do so. I am am shot.” The Defendant B, “I am am shot and ambling. I am am on the side, and am knick, so I am on the back of the new wall so that I am knife I am knife I am a knife and knife I am a knife I am on the back of the wall, and I am am knife I am kn if I am knife I am on the back of the wall.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to place the victim under confinement, thereby committing harsh acts, and thereby resulting in the victim’s satisfying and sexual satfeculing image with which the number of days of treatment can not be known.

2. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant B

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

At around 14:20 as of October 20, 2016, the Defendants jointly committed a promise with the victim to go to spion and avoid the Defendant at the Seoul Gero Underground Parking Site located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 27-ro 27-gil, and Defendant B took part in the telegraphs of the victim and taken sprinks by hand and drinking, Defendant A took part in the body of the victim, and Defendant A took part in the body of the victim at hand, and Defendant A took part in the body of hand, sprinking the victim into drinking, and sprinking the chest for about 2 hours from that time to February 25, 2017. The Defendants jointly committed a total of seven times as indicated in the attached list of crimes 1:2,3,5,5,13,19,21, and 222.

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

On November 4, 2016, at least 17:20, the Defendants jointly threatened the victim at the first parking lot located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 27:15,00, by acquiring a transportation card owned by the victim from the victim and settling approximately KRW 9,000 with the above transportation card until January 31, 2017, including: (a) the Defendants jointly collected a total of six times of KRW 379,000,000,000 in total, as indicated in attached Table 2, 1 through 3,5, and 7; and (b) the Defendants attempted to withdraw from the said transportation card at the convenience store.

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

At around 16:05 on January 31, 2017, Defendants jointly reported the network of Defendant A, Defendant B said that there is no wrong fact for the victim, and Defendant B said that there was a fluort 2-3 times in a pipe of the victim, and 3-4 times in a pipe of the face of the victim, the Defendants put the fluort and a fluort fluor in a mouth with the victim’s entrance and mouth c-4 times in which the number of treatment days cannot be identified.

3. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant C

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

피고인들은 공동하여 2017. 2. 13. 18:00경 서울 동작구 P아파트 상가의 'Q 학원' 복도에서 피해자가 위 학원에 등원하기를 기다리던 중 피해자와 마주치자 피고인 A은 자신의 어머니와 학원 문제로 인한 갈등으로 가출한 것이 피해자의 탓이라고 하며 피해자에게 "아는 깡패가 있는데 너희 가족을 몰살 시키거나 너희 엄마와 여동생을 사창가에 팔아버리도록 하고 니 여동생을 납치하여 강간하겠다. 우리 친구들 수 십 명이너희 집 문을 따고 들어가서 깽판을 치고 너희 학교에도 찾아 가 너를 폭행하겠다. 너를 지하철역으로 끌고 다니면서 사람들에게 돈을 받고 스트레스 풀이용으로 때리게 하겠다."라고 말하며 피해자에게 25만 원을 가지고 가출하라고 시키고 피고인 C도 옆에서 위세를 가하여 이에 겁을 먹은 피해자로 하여금 2017. 2. 14. 10:00경 집에서 가출하도록 하고 범죄일람표 2 연번 8번 기재와 같이 피해자로부터 집에서 가지고 나온 20만 원을 교부받았다.

As a result, the Defendants forced the victim to do an unobligatory act and forced 200,000 won.

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

At around 04:00 on February 26, 2017, Defendants assaulted the victim as shown in the attached Table 1 No. 23 per annum from the apartment house located adjacent to the house located adjacent to the house located adjacent to the apartment of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N.

4. Joint crimes by Defendants B and C (Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act)

On November 2016, at around 21:00 to 22:00, Defendants assaulted the victim at the parking lot adjacent to the building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as shown in attached Table 1 No. 6 of the List of Crimes.

5. The sole crime of Defendant A;

(a) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

1) At the early 23:00 on November 2016, the Defendant, at the parking lot of Bara in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2016, sexual intercourses would be rape if the Defendant continues to comply with the promise. If he refuses to do so once he refuses to do so, he shall be promptly set off inside the bit of bitch inside the bitch," and vain zone Ma. Ma, he shall not be vain and vain. Ma, he shall not be used soon, and he shall be dried up to the depth. The Defendant shall be dried up and dried up. The Defendant shall be dried up to the depth of the son. The Defendant shall be dried up, and shall be dried up to the Ye-dong, and shall be dried up to the Ye-dong, and the Defendant shall be able to observe the son's family, and shall be decent, high, and shall be 5 out of the Defendant's inner bitle and the Defendant shall be exposed to the victim.

2) On November 19, 2016, at the Defendant’s house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) stated that the victim must have returned home due to the family conference; (b) stated that “I would not promptly leave bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son

3) On February 21, 2017, at around 15:00 to 16:00, the Defendant: (a) was under confinement of the victim at a multi-household house located adjacent to the apartment house located adjacent to the house located adjacent to the apartment house located adjacent to Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and was off the door to lock up; (b) was laid down on the floor; and (c) was seated on the floor; and (d) decided that the victim “it would be suitable for tobacco smoke during the sex season or to take the mouth of the flusssssium.” At the same time, the Defendant forced the victim to flussium into the Defendant’s sexual flag for about 30 minutes, and attempted to put the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s anus without inserting inserted, thereby making the victim enter the victim’s sexual organ rapidly, thereby making the victim brean.

4) On February 25, 2017, at the Defendant’s house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Ulllle 301, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim with “if you find it late, I will be able to do so if you find it late;” and (b) threatened the victim’s resistance by threatening “I would rape if I would see the horse,” and then forced the Defendant to go off the Defendant’s seat and sloping first on the ground that I found it early, the Defendant laid off the Defendant’s bridge on the floor, opened the bridge on the floor, and put the victim into the Defendant’s sexual flag between 20 to 30 minutes.

Accordingly, the defendant puts the defendant's sexual organ into the mouth of the victim who is a child or juvenile four times in total.

(b) Injury;

피고인은 2016. 11. 28. 22:00경 서울 서초구 S에 있는 빌라 주차장에서 피해자가 평소 지시와 약속을 지키지 않는다는 이유로 무릎을 꿇게 하고 피해자에게 팔을 걷으라고 하여 맨살이 드러나게 한 후 피해자의 팔을 왼손으로 잡아 움직이지 못하게 하고 피우던 담배를 오른손에 들어 피해자의 왼손 팔뚝에 비벼 껐다.

As a result, the defendant puts a picture on the part of arms that can not be seen as treatment days to the victim.

(c) coercion;

1) On February 11, 2017, around 15:00, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim at the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Party T, “I see the head on the ground, and spons the head, if you do not see the head,” and (b) let the victim fright to spack the head on the ground for about 20 minutes.

2) On February 14, 2017, the Defendant, at around 17:00 on February 14, 2017, at a multi-household house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N, a multi-household house located adjacent to the house located adjacent to the house in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Defendant threatened the victim, while drinking a knife, having the head on the ground, and let the victim sleep up his head on the ground for about one hour.

3) On February 24, 2017, at around 19:00, the Defendant instructed the victim to leave the closed house above the Defendant’s house located adjacent to the Defendant’s house in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to go up to the front, and by threatening the victim “a person must do so. I need to do so. I do not refuse to do so.”

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim more than three times in total so that he did not perform any duty.

(d) Magion;

1) On February 24, 2017, between 04:00 and 05:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) told the victim, who was in the situation of coming from the street on the road in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, to bring about KRW 300,000,000; (b) threatened the victim as if he were at the time of the victim; and (c) by threatening the victim, the Defendant received KRW 250,00 from the Defendant’s house of Seocho-gu, Seoul, 301, at around 09:0 on the same day from the food victim

2) At around 11:30 on February 24, 2017, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ulllle 301, 250,000 won, the victim promised to give 2,50,000 won to the Defendant, as stated in the preceding paragraph, to bring about more than 10,000 won to the victim on the ground that the victim did not observe the time commitment, and by threatening the victim as if he were in the house, and let the frighter, who was fluent, pay 10,000 won to the Defendant at the home of the above Defendant’s house, at around 12:00 on the same day, he got the victim to pay 1,000 won to the Defendant at the above Defendant’s house.

3) On February 26, 2017, from around 05:00 to 06:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim in the vicinity of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Park Gabbbbing-ro, with the agreement that “it would be given to the Defendant that he had a friendly sentence, and that the sentence was caused by an accident; (b) would not send money to the house; (c) would not send it to the Defendant; and (d) demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 300,000 to V, who the Defendant called the Defendant around the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant got a total of 650,000 won from the victim three times in total.

(e) Violence;

On February 26, 2017, the Defendant assaulted twice the part of the victim’s worship on the ground that the victim knew of the fact, in the process of taking cash from the underground stairs of “XPC of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government” around February 26, 2017, on the ground that the victim knew of the fact.

6. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint violence) by Defendant B;

At around 13:30 as of October 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim as shown in attached Table 1, a year of sight of crime No. 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of Y,O, Z, and AA:

1. Each written statement of amnesty against J and AB;

1. Written opinions (Evidence 12), each photograph (Evidence 21,50)

1. Each tear gas tear, respective tear, each metre (Evidence List 15, 18), and victim's reflector;

1. The written confirmation of text messages and the written text messages A and AC;

1. Documents to be forwarded;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence list 10, 16, 19, 20, 25, 31, 33, 35, 36, 44, 49);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 350(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 324(1) of the Criminal Act, the former part of Articles 281(1), 27(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 6 and 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) (Joint Violence Selection), Article 2(2)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 350(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, Article 250(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1)2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 7(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the Punishment of the Act.

B. Defendant B: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 324(1) of the Criminal Act, the first sentence of Articles 281(1), 27(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 6 and 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1)

(c) Defendant C: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 324(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 324(1) of the Criminal Act, the first sentence of Article 281(1), Articles 277(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the punishment provided for in the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse on February 21, 2017

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment as provided for in the crime of bodily injury resulting from heavy confinement)

(c) Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment as provided for in the crime of bodily injury resulting from heavy confinement)

1. Illegal type (Defendant A and B);

Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant C);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation and community service order (defendant C);

Article 62-2, 1. Order to complete a program (Defendant A) under the Criminal Act

The main sentence of Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. Determination as to Defendant C and his/her defense counsel’s assertion of exemption from disclosure order and notification order (Defendant A) under the proviso of Article 49(1) and the proviso of Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the defendant falls under the case of child or juvenile)

1. The argument and judgment as to the crime No. 1-A and No. 1-B

Defendant C and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that he did not participate in each of the above crimes since he did not memory as to the crimes listed in Nos. 2-9 of the sight table 10, 11, 12, 17, and 1-1 (b) of the crime No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below, or there was no Defendant C or the victim at the scene of the crime at the time.

In full view of the following facts that can be recognized by the above macroscopic evidence, etc., Defendant C can be recognized as having committed each of the above crimes jointly with Defendant A and B. As such, Defendant C and his defense counsel’s above assertion is without merit.

① Of the crime No. 1-A of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court, the victim stated that he was assaulted by each of the Defendants at an investigative agency (Evidence No. 104, 106-108). Defendant B also stated in the investigative agency that he jointly committed the crime set forth in No. 10 per year of the crime list (Evidence No. 486-487 of the evidence record) with Defendant C (Evidence No. 486-487 of the crime record). Defendant C also made a statement to the purport that he was aware that he was unable to memory of the crime set forth in No. 10 through No. 12 of the crime list of the crime set forth in the judgment of the investigative agency, but the victim is thought not to make a false statement (Evidence No. 557-559 of the evidence record).

② As to the crime described in No. 1-A of the crime in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A, as described in the crime No. 1-A of the crime list No. 1-2 of the crime, was threatened by Defendant A to the victim that the victim was faced with 20 to 30 minutes of drinking and drinking, and Defendant B made a statement at the investigative agency that Defendant B was at the time of the crime (Evidence No. 62 of the record) but Defendant B made a statement at the investigative agency that Defendant A was at the time of the crime, Defendant A was the victim at the time of the crime, and Defendant C was also the victim at the time of the crime (the steam record No. 490 of the steam record). Defendant A also made a statement that the victim committed an assault jointly with Defendant B and C (Evidence No. 1130 of the record), and Defendant C also made a statement at the investigative agency as to the above crime (Evidence No. 563 of the record).

③ Of the crime No. 1-B of the judgment, Defendant B made a statement to the effect that Defendant C did not participate in such intimidation (Evidence No. 65-66 of the evidence record) with respect to the crime set forth in No. 2-2 of the Crime List No. 1-B of the judgment, the victim threatened Defendant A and B to bring money to the victim. However, it is unclear whether the above statement was the purport that Defendant C did not participate in such intimidation, and Defendant B and A made a statement at each investigation agency to the effect that at the time of the above crime, Defendant C also threatened the victim (Evidence No. 498, 1135 of the evidence record). Defendant B recognized the crime of this case as a substitute for the crime of this case from the initial stage of investigation. Defendant A denied most of the criminal acts at the police stage and recognized some of the crimes at the prosecution, and thus Defendant C and C do not seem to have any circumstance to make a false statement unfavorable to Defendant C as to this part of the crime. Meanwhile, Defendant C also recognized that the victim received money distributed by intimidation.

④ Defendant C stated at an investigative agency that “I have the ability to associate with a large number of violences” (Evidence No. 556 pages) and recognized the limitation of his/her memory for each individual criminal fact.

2. The argument and judgment as to the crime No. 1-D

Defendant C and his defense counsel asserted that, at the date and time, at the place specified in the crime No. 1-D, Defendant A and B as indicated in the judgment of the court below, they did not participate in the crime of double confinement because Defendant B supported a cigarette to the victim’s arms, or supported a cigarette to the victim’s sexual flag, Defendant A and B did not participate in the crime of double confinement injury.

However, a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through a functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the common intent. Even if a person is not directly shared part of the constituent elements among the conspiracys, if it is acknowledged that a functional control exists through an essential contribution to the crime rather than a mere conspiracys, but rather a functional control exists through an inherent contribution to the crime, it shall be held liable for the crime committed by another conspiracys as a co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Do235, Apr. 26, 2007). In such case, even if the conspiracys did not take any reasonable measures, such as the means and attitude of the crime, the number of persons participating in the crime, the time and duration of the crime, the possibility of contact with others, and the likelihood of contact with others during the process of the crime, as well as any other factors anticipated to the crime.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the crime of aggravated punishment is established when a person wishes to jointly engage in a basic act, and the intent to jointly engage in such a act is not necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3485, Apr. 12, 2002).

According to the health stand, the above macroscopic evidence, etc. as to this case, Defendant C, in collaboration with Defendant A and B at the time and time indicated in No. 2. 8 of the annexed Table 2, thereby threatening the victim to leave the scene, and the victim who has ceased to have a certain accommodation due to leaving the scene was detained as stated in the crime No. 1-D, but at the same time, could be found to have committed a harsh act by fighting with the victim under the name of 1-1. Thus, even if Defendant C did not participate in the act of supporting the victim’s body as alleged by Defendant C, even if Defendant C and B did not participate in the act of supporting the victim’s body, Defendant C should be deemed to have contributed to the essential contribution to the above crime without any possibility of such an act, even though it was possible to have predicted or sufficiently predicted that Defendant A and B engaged in another act that may cause injury to the victim during the commission of the crime of treating the victim.

Therefore, Defendant C is liable for the crime of bodily injury resulting from confinement in the judgment. Thus, Defendant C and his defense counsel's above assertion is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for 5 years to 45 years;

B. Defendant B and C: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 45 years

2. The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the Defendants as they are juveniles.

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

1) favorable circumstances

Defendant A is a juvenile. Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment. Defendant A’s family members promised to prevent the recidivism of Defendant A, and Defendant A wanted to take prior measures.

2) Unfavorable circumstances

Defendant A, on the ground that it is impossible to obtain the victim’s consent, such as not complying with the agreement or having him located in the crime, committed the crime of this case with Defendant B and C, which repeatedly took money from a long time to a long time with Defendant C, and prevents the victim from committing the crime of this case, such as saving the victim, thereby thoroughly harming the victim’s personality. In addition, Defendant A used the victim as a shot dog to meet the victim’s own same-sex protection by threatening the victim by threatening the victim’s mobility, etc. In addition, Defendant A, who was the father of the victim at the time when the victim was detained as indicated in the crime No. 1 of the crime of this case, did not appear to have been released by the victim’s father, and Defendant A, who was the father of the victim, tried to repeatedly take advantage of the victim’s whereabouts with his parent and the victim’s family member, who was the victim of this case, and tried to make the victim’s family member aware of the victim’s mental harm, such as threateninging the victim’s family member.

Defendant A and their families, despite the explicit expression of rejection by the victims and their families after the instant case, have tried to contact the victims and their families with the victim and their families in the place of detention for the purpose of agreement, thereby making the victims and their families enjoy painable memorys.

Defendant A refers to Defendant B and C, who will be responsible for the instant crime, or his family members will be aware of the adverse effect that the victim would have on his studies or future desire and complain of inconvenience due to detention. Defendant A would like to repeatedly prepare 7 U.S. dollars for the instant crime, but I would like to have 0 U.S. 1 U.S. 7 U.S. 1 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 5 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 5 U.S. 7 U.S. 7 U.S. 5 U.S. 7 U.S. 2017).

In order for such defendant A to have the ability to live as a healthy member of society that does not harm others after returning to the victim's side suffering due to his mistake and the victim's side, it is necessary to have sufficient edification time.

3) Sub-decisions

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment against Defendant A shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the character, conduct, health status, family relationship, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

B. Defendant B

1) favorable circumstances

Defendant B is a juvenile. Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment. Defendant B did not live together with his father, mother and her mother and did not have a good family condition, and such family type had an impact on Defendant B’s instant crime. From the initial stage of the investigation, Defendant B overall recognized his criminal act and appeared to have an attitude to reflect on the reflectivity.

2) Unfavorable circumstances

Defendant B also got off money repeatedly from the victim who was unaware of it for the reason that he could not be able to obtain, and prevented the crime of this case, such as saving the victim, so that the victim's personality can be long. In light of the contents of the crime, such as the crime No. 22, which was committed when the victim's copia was committed in order to make the victim's copia, the defendant B seems to have been aware of the abuse of the victim beyond simply asking the victim to go against the victim. In addition, the defendant B, without any justifiable reason, revealing the remaining human nature at the time of the crime as stated in the Paragraph (d) of Article 1 of the judgment. The defendant B appears to have suffered physical and mental suffering from the crime of this case. The defendant also did not agree with the victim and his family members, and the defendant and his family members did not agree with the victim and his family members.

3) Sub-decisions

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment against Defendant B shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the character, conduct, health condition, means and result of the crime.

C. Defendant C

1) Unfavorable circumstances

Defendant C also took money from a victim who is not well aware of it for a long period of time for the reason that he could not obtain, and sought the victim, thereby harming the character of the victim. In light of the content of the crime of No. 15,20, etc., the annexed crime List No. 15, and the annexed crime No. 15,20, etc., when setting up the victim, Defendant C appears to have treated the victim as a tool to resolve his desire for violence. The crime of this case by Defendant C appears to have suffered a large number of victims.

(ii) favorable circumstances;

The criminal facts in which Defendant C participated are the lowest among the Defendants, and among them, the degree of participation in the crime of causing bodily injury resulting from heavy confinement seems to have been the highest statutory penalty among the Defendants. Defendant C appears not to have directly engaged in any act of cruel nature, such as supporting a cigaretteing, etc., of the victim’s body. Defendant C wishes to take the preference against Defendant C by mutual consent with the victim. The family members of Defendant C wanted to take the preference against Defendant C.

3) Sub-decisions

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment against Defendant C shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the character, conduct, health status, family relationship, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive against a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which is a sex offense subject to the registration of personal information (defendant A), the defendant is a person subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42(1) of the same Act, and the defendant is obligated to submit personal information to the competent authority pursuant to Article 43(1) of the same Act (On the other hand, the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (similar sex act) which is a sex offense subject to the registration of personal information in this case and the other crimes are concurrently committed pursuant to the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentence is deemed unfair. Thus, Article 45(4) of the same Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is not applicable.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

For the presiding judge or judge;

The same judge's identity

Judges Lee Young-young

1) The facts charged are stated as "20,000 won", but in light of the statement No. 2 and No. 6 of the list of crimes, this seems to be a clerical error of KRW 1,50,000.

2) The evidence records of 498 indicate that "I were threatened as I, I and B," but considering that I were the suspect suspect interrogation of the defendant B, the above "B" seems to be a clerical error of "C".