(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.19 2015노2691 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.19 2015노2691

아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등

Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Reasons

1. With respect to the part of the case of the Defendant, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction, and with respect to the part regarding the case regarding which the request for attachment order was filed, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for protective observation order was filed, and only the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed.

Ultimately, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the claim for the order to observe the protection order, and this part is excluded from the scope of appeal of this Court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim E (hereinafter “victim”) made a mistake in fact (the crime committed by force against the victim E) and made a detailed statement on the offender’s appearance after the lapse of time. This is because the victim made a false statement that the Defendant was the offender by reporting the name of the Defendant on the circuit TV (CCTV) closed in the subway and concluded that the Defendant was the offender, and that the Defendant’s appearance on the CCTV as the offender’s appearance was expressed as the offender’s appearance.

As such, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the victim, by misunderstanding the fact that the victim was designated as a criminal by misunderstanding the defendant, and the credibility of the statement cannot be recognized.

B. The Defendant, who was mentally and physically weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The sentence of the court below which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(d)

There are special circumstances to exempt the accused from disclosure and notification orders.

Even if it is not so, the period of disclosure and notification order ordered by the court below is too long and unfair.

3. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s case, the lower court and the trial are legitimate.

참조조문

-전자장치 부착 등에 관한 법률 제9조 제8항

-전자장치 부착 등에 관한 법률 제21조의8

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2021.01.22 2020노414

-서울고등법원 2018.01.26 2017노3078

-서울고등법원 2016.02.23 2015노3660

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.06.22 2016노107

-부산고등법원 2017.10.18 2017노372