logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(제주) 2020.12.23 2020노92
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자유사성행위)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination is made by the victim’s father who falls under “guardian” under Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act, and each of the instant offenses constitutes “child abuse-related crimes” under Article 3 subparag. 7-2 of the Child Welfare Act.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated and determined whether the Defendant was sentenced to or exempted from an employment restriction order related to child-related institutions pursuant to the main sentence of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act.

However, if only the defendant appealed against the judgment below which omitted the employment restriction order against child-related institutions, the punishment and incidental disposition may not be changed disadvantageous to the defendant in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on the ground that the court below did not deliberate and decide on the employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act.

B. 1) In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing as an appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is examined.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of mitigated sentencing have already been revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently taken into account, and no particular change in circumstances was found in the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, career, character and conduct and environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, records of the crime and contents, etc.

arrow