logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.31 2019노3823
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete a program, employment restriction order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, restriction on employment, confiscation) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s physical parts of a female-friendly body were taken several times; (b) assaulted the said victim; (c) taken a cell phone at the window of a female student’s residence; (d) the nature of the relevant crime was very poor; and (e) the victim E wanting to take severe punishment, taking into account the fact that the most damaged victim E is against the Defendant’s mistake; (c) the Defendant is the first offender without any criminal power; and (d) the agreement with some victims was reached; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (e) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the sentencing conditions indicated in the oral proceedings after the crime are too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow