logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.18 2018노1868
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The injured party’s wife, such as mistake of facts, does not interfere with daily life and can be naturally cured, and does not constitute an injury to the crime of rape, and the accused did not inflict an injury on the injured party with the intent of injury. The court below committed a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.). The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure and notification of the Defendant’s information for a period of seven years, even though there are special circumstances that would not disclose the Defendant’s personal information in violation of the disclosure and notification order.

(c)

Sentencing improper sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 6, 2018; hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) provides that a person, who was sentenced to a punishment or a medical care and custody for committing a sex offense against a child or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) shall not operate a facility, institution, or place of business under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as “child-related institution, etc.”) or shall not provide a child-related institution, etc. with employment or actual labor, and uniformly sets the period during which it is impossible to provide its operation, employment, or actual labor (hereinafter referred to as “restricted period”).

However, Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018, provides that the court may not operate child-related institutions, etc. for the period of restriction on employment or provide them with employment or actual labor to child-related institutions, etc. for the period of restriction on employment.

arrow