(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.04.11 2013노377 | 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 2013.04.11 2013노377

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, completion of sexual assault treatment programs 80 hours, and notification of disclosure of information for five years) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant as his father-child and the responsibility of the Defendant to rear and protect the victim as his father-child, and the indecent act was committed on three occasions by the victim with intellectual disorder, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental impulse, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment corresponding to the crime liability.

However, on the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case from the investigative agency in depth and divided the defendant's mistake in depth, that the defendant did not commit more than the defect that the victim did not want to do so, that it does not seem to have committed any more serious indecent act by the defendant, and that it does not seem to have committed any indecent act by the defendant for a long time. In addition, the defendant is supported by his family with his wage and salary income, supported by his mother, agreed with the victim, submitted a written application to request the return of the victim to the defendant at home, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for a fine imposed once on 192 by the Road Traffic Act, the defendant's family members also moved together with the defendant's guidance to the defendant, other character and conduct, the defendant's environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the method and result of the crime, and other circumstances after the crime, and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is too reasonable in light of the records.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.

참조조문

-도로교통법

-형사소송법 제364조 제6항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노1706

-서울고등법원 2013.04.04 2012노3360

-광주고등법원 2018.04.19 2017노540

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2013.11.19 2013노145

-서울고등법원 2014.01.09 2013노1783