logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.11.02 2017노323
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The rationale behind the lower judgment is that the Defendant’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing is against the Defendant, and there was no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant’s damage caused by the Defendant’s crime was recovered to a certain extent after the Defendant’s catherter and surgery against the victim.

However, the fact that the defendant's crime is not good for the children with intellectual disability, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

When considering these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions do not seem to be unfair to the extent that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and reversed.

We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

2. In full view of various circumstances revealed by the lower court, such as the fact that there is no history of sexual assault against the Defendant to determine whether to exempt the disclosure or notification of personal information, there is a special reason that the disclosure or notification of personal information of the Defendant should not be made.

The decision is judged.

It is justifiable that the court below exempted the defendant from issuing an order to disclose and notify personal information.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

3. The Prosecutor’s appeal to the conclusion is dismissed on the grounds that the appeal by the Prosecutor is without merit (Provided, That the appeal by the Prosecutor was dismissed on the second below the second below, but the “increased of concurrent crimes (within the scope of the total sum of the long-term punishments for each crime)” was omitted, and the 6th below the 4th below “22 years” was erroneous, and thus, the appeal by the Prosecutor is corrected in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

arrow