logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.03.26 2019노2686
준강제추행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below sentenced the defendant to a conviction for a prosecuted case, dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding a request for attachment order, and sentenced the defendant to probation ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3 (2) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act"), and only the defendant appealed.

Therefore, according to Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Electronic Monitoring Act, the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding the part concerning the defendant's case and the part concerning the ex officio probation order, if the defendant files an appeal against the part concerning the defendant's case among the judgment below, the part concerning the request for attachment order or the part concerning the request for probation order, shall be deemed as filing an appeal. The part concerning the probation order issued by the court ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act shall be deemed as identical to this, and therefore, the part concerning the probation order issued by the court pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act shall be deemed as filing an appeal against the defendant.

limited to this section.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

B. The lower court’s improper order to restrict employment to the Defendant for three years at institutions, etc. related to children and juveniles and welfare facilities for disabled persons is unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation for three years after the execution of imprisonment with prison labor is completed.

3. Determination

A. The defendant recognized all the crimes of this case as the crime of this case, divided the errors, and reflected against them, and the defendant was punished in excess of the fine prior to the crime of this case.

arrow