logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노2104
특수상해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of study in sexual assault treatment programs) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: the crime of this case was committed by flag of a monst of a female victim's head, which is a dangerous object, and was committed by indecent act with the victim's flag. The crime of this case is acknowledged to have committed an indecent act with the victim's flag, and the nature of the crime is very poor; however, the victim does not want the defendant's punishment upon the victim's agreement at the trial; the victim's age, sexual behavior, career, family relation, economic situation, circumstances leading to the crime, and motive leading to the crime; circumstances after the crime was committed; and all other factors concerning the sentencing mentioned in the records and changes theory of this case are considered to have been appropriate; thus, the prosecutor'

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (i.e., a person subject to registration of personal information under Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes when a crime of forced indecent act is finalized, which is a sex offense subject to registration of new information, the defendant becomes a person subject to registration of personal information under Article 42(1) of the same Act, and has the duty to submit personal information to the competent authority pursuant to Article 43 of the same Act. In full view of the statutory punishment, crime quality, criminal administration, and the circumstances leading to the aggravation of concurrent crimes, the lower court’s judgment that did not regard the period of registration of personal information under Article 45(

arrow