beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) is too heavy or it is too heavy (the Defendant).
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination of each of the grounds for appeal.
Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of a case, taking into account the severity of the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc. while sentencing the punishment for an individual sex offense, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the same Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and who have not been finally determined.
Therefore, the above revised Act shall apply to the crimes of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using cameras, etc.) in the judgment of the court below. Meanwhile, the judgment on the employment restriction order under Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall be imposed simultaneously with the conviction of a sex offense case, and as long as a single sentence is imposed on the part of the judgment of the court below as the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using cameras, etc.) and the remaining guilty part of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot
3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is erroneous for reversal of authority as above.