logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.23 2014노3262
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfilled and unfair, and there is no special circumstance that the defendant should not disclose or notify the personal information of the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime committed an indecent act by force by the Defendant’s sheshel’s son and female, and the content of the crime is very poor, and thus, the victim appears to have suffered severe sexual humiliation and mental pain, but did not take any measures to recover from damage.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflected a crime; (b) the Defendant is the primary offender who has old and no criminal history; (c) the Defendant appears to have reached the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol; and (d) other factors of sentencing, such as character and conduct of the Defendant, family environment, background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. The issue of whether an order to disclose personal information and an exception to an order to disclose personal information constitutes “where it is determined that there are other special circumstances to disclose personal information” should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., characteristics of the crime, such as the crime in question, the degree and anticipated side effects of the offender’s disadvantage due to the disclosure order or notification order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes subject to registration, and the effect of protecting victims from sexual crimes subject to registration

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The lower court did not have any history of punishment for a sex offense, and in light of the characteristics, etc. of the instant crime, there is a general risk of recidivism by a sexual crime against the Defendant.

arrow