2017No403 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

indecent act in writing

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

The highest court (prosecutions) and the chief public trial (public trial)

Attorney H (Korean National Assembly Line)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017Ma109 Decided May 2, 2017

November 29, 2017

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 3 million, the order to complete the program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Sentencing based on the statutory penalty, is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct administration, and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing and the sentencing guidelines, etc. of the first instance, or the sentencing of the appellate court is deemed to have been deemed to have been exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have been unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance. Unless such exceptional circumstances exist, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do

B. The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of the lower court were revealed most in the proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances concerning the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment. There is a need to consider that the Defendant has no particular criminal history, and that there is a confession and rebuttal against the Defendant, etc., which are favorable to the Defendant, or that, considering the fact that the Defendant is going to a different place in the sobry and so on, the Defendant does not seem to have committed any contingent act in light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, or that there is a victim in the other place in the sobry water room, and that the degree of indecent act cannot be deemed to be light, and that there is no agreement with the

C. Considering the above legal principles and circumstances as well as the various sentencing conditions as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's regular date of judges;

For the purpose of judge well-being

Judges Jeong Young-young