logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2014.11.20 2014노330
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of three years) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant following the victim who was married to the new wall, and committed an indecent act by force following his female in a park toilet, and again, the crime of this case was committed against another nearby park toilet in order to threaten and rape the victim again, and the nature of the crime is not weak, but is highly likely to be subject to criticism.

Furthermore, it is clear that the fear, mental shock, and sexual humiliation of the victim who was ageed due to the above crime would have been considerable.

In this regard, it can be said that the defendant should be punished strictly.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) appears to have committed the said crime somewhat contingently during the commission of the crime; (c) the commission of rape was committed against the victim; and (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim only smoothly; and (c) the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment, etc. favorable to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, background and degree of the crime; and (e) other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the reasons for sentencing in the judgment of the court below

1. Since it is obvious that the part "45 years" among the applicable sentences is a clerical error in "2 years and six months", the part shall be corrected to "22 years and six months" in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

.

arrow