logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.27 2017노268
자살방조미수등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of the number of suicide incidents among the part of the case of this court, and found the defendant not guilty of any indecent act committed against a specific criminal under the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, etc., and sentenced the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of attachment order to dismiss the prosecutor's request on this ground. Since the part of the case of the defendant's case where only the defendant appealed the conviction part of the defendant's case and the prosecutor did not appeal the defendant and the part of the case of attachment order became final, the court below's scope of the judgment is limited to each attempted suicide

2. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the gist of the grounds of appeal.

3. It is recognized that the judgment defendant repents his mistake.

However, even though the Defendant had been punished several times due to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse, etc., he/she committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the instant crime attempted to assist and commit suicide by aiding and abetting the victims on several occasions.

Considering the conditions of sentencing as stated in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, “two years of imprisonment” of the second 2 Myeon 4 of the judgment below is a clerical error in “two years of imprisonment, 120 hours’ order, five years’ order to disclose and notify registered information, and order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years’ location” under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

arrow