logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2013.04.24 2012노684
성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(주거침입강간등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (four years of imprisonment) shall be too heavy.

2. As the instant crime was committed for a relatively old period of four years, the Defendant sought mitigation of punishment on the grounds that the instant crime was committed on the grounds that there were circumstances discovered by the DNA Examination and that it was against the view of all, and that there was a high school student’s child to be considered, and that there was a high school student’s child to be considered.

However, in this case, even if considering all the above reasons cited by the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is determined within the appropriate range of sentence depending on its responsibility, and it is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

On the other hand, the court below mitigated punishment pursuant to the latter part of Article 39(1) and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the previous conviction of the instant crime and the judgment were concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, mitigation of the punishment lower than the lower limit of the punishment at the time of the judgment with regard to the instant crime and the instant crime at the same time does not comply with the purport of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act aiming at preventing any imbalance of punishment between latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act and former concurrent crimes, but rather causes unreasonable outcomes that can be mitigated more favorable than the instant case by having the previous crimes indicated in the judgment. As such, in the instant case, punishment is imposed on the ground that the instant previous crimes constitute concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the instant crime.

arrow