logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.04.24 2014노186
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)등
Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") to mistake the part of the defendant's case shall be the first-A of the decision of the court below.

paragraphs 1 and 2.

No crime of quasi-indecent act by compulsion mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be committed.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the defendant in violation of the disclosure disclosure order has no record of punishment for sexual assault crimes, the possibility of resolving relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the defendant is seriously against his/her own mistake, etc., it is improper for the court below to order the defendant to disclose and notify the information despite special circumstances that the defendant should not disclose personal information.

In light of the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for sexual crimes, possibility of resolving the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and that the defendant seriously reflects his/her fault, etc., it is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic device even though the defendant does not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

However, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same content as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by stating in detail the judgment on the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument.”

The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (i) The investigative agency is the location where the victim was locked at the time of each of the above crimes; (ii) the specific body part and contact method of the defendant's personal body; (iii) the attitude where the defendant was living in the body of the victim; and (iv) the victim who was living in the body of the defendant.

arrow