(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.15 2018노1625 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.15 2018노1625

아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등추행)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, 3 years each.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the amount of punishment imposed on the Defendants in the original trial is unreasonable, because the punishment imposed on each of the Defendants (one year of imprisonment for each of the Defendants, 40 hours’ order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years’ order to disclose or notify to Defendant A, and 5 years’ order to disclose or notify to Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants were the representative director or a general manager of the company, who was the highest power person within the society of the company, and the victims were the socially weak in the company after completing the hydro-performance test.

Defendants have a social responsibility to protect victims within the company from other employees.

However, the defendants abuse the right to direct and supervise the victims' poor social position, disregarding the victims' personality and sexual decision-making rights, and bucks and bucks and lusents, in the opinion that they can lead the victims in mind.

Such crimes are socially not good.

The victims of the early life of the society have a considerable mental and serious shock and suffering, and their status remain for a long time.

In the court below, even though the defendants acknowledged the crime, they did not commit the true crime against the victims.

There is no possibility of social criticism against the Defendants.

Therefore, the corresponding responsibility should be fully borne by the defendants.

However, the Defendants committed a genuine crime against the victims and paid a corresponding amount to the victims for the restoration of the damage, while they committed a genuine crime in the appellate trial at the latest.

The victims already expressed in the court of appeal that they would not want to punish the Defendants again once again at the court of appeal even though they had already been expressed in the court of appeal.

It is desirable that this Court should fully respect the victims of such tolerance and tolerance.

Defendant

A shall be of the same kind.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.11.15 2018노1712

-춘천지방법원 2013.11.13 2013노465

-서울고등법원 2018.10.11 2018노1895

-창원지방법원 2015.04.29 2015노154

-광주고등법원 2016.07.07 2016노152