logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.19 2014노3808 (1)
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강간)등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is improper for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order of this case.

It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for probation order of this case.

Judgment

Article 9(4) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders provides that when a judgment or decision of innocence (excluding where a medical treatment and custody is rendered on the ground of mental disorder), acquittal, acquittal, or dismissal of a public prosecution is rendered with respect to a specific crime case, a request for a probation order shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 21-8 of the same Act, and Article 9(4) of the same Act shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a request for a probation order. In addition, according to Article 1 of the same Act, the above provision appears to be premised on guidance through probation or the attachment of an electronic tracking device after the completion of punishment. In addition, according to Article 1 of the same Act, the title of Chapter 2 of the same Act, which is the basis for the request for a probation order, is “the attachment of an electronic device after the completion of punishment,” and Chapter 2 of Chapter 2 of the same Act, which is the basis for the request for a probation order, should be based on the premise that the sentence of a probation order or probation order should be sentenced to imprisonment for the specific crime case.

However, the court held that the instant case violates the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape), which is a specific crime case against a person subject to a request for an attachment order and a person subject to a request for a probation order (hereinafter “person subject to a request for an attachment order”), and that the instant case was tried together with the instant case subject to attachment order and the case subject to a request for probation order 2014ro518.

arrow