logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2020.12.09 2020노532
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자위계등추행)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A summary of the lower judgment, the Defendant committed an indecent act or similarity with the victim (here, 208 birth) who is a sheshesheshel’s shelshel’s shed, and committed an indecent act or similarity with the victim under the age of 13 by force over six times from around B of 2017 to March 2020.

[Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Minor, etc. under thirteen years of age) was prosecuted as the charge, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge and sentenced the Defendant to seven years of imprisonment, 40 hours’ order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, or the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Judgment

1. A favorable normal defendant has been recognized as an investigative agency for committing a crime and shows a form of reflection in depth.

In agreement with the mother of the victim who is the former wife, the mother of the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant.

The defendant is the defendant.

arrow