beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case committed each of the following facts: (a) as a foreigner, the defendant entered the Republic of Korea as a tourist visa without obtaining the status of sojourn eligible for employment in the Republic of Korea; (b) entered the Republic of Korea as a tourist visa; (c) without obtaining the recognition of qualification as a massage club; and (d) had attempted to engage in sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's crepits; (b) the victim was extremely poor in quality of the crime; (c) due to the attempted quasi-rape of this case, the victim was suffering from a considerable mental shock and sense of sexual humiliation; (d) the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; and (e) the defendant did not pay any effort to recover damage; and (e) the victim was punished against the defendant.
Meanwhile, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, the fact that the crime of quasi-rape of this case against the victim was committed, the fact that the defendant had no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, etc.
The sentencing guidelines are not applicable inasmuch as the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, are minor crimes.
In full view of the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where the conditions of sentencing are not changed and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), it is unreasonable
Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.