logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2019.11.28 2019노452
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in light of the following: (a) under favorable circumstances: (b) the Defendant was guilty of committing the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was punished twice a fine for the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant was punished once a suspended sentence of imprisonment; (c) the victim appears to have caused a considerable sense of sexual humiliation and apprehension by the instant crime, and was punished against the Defendant; (d) there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s submission of new sentencing data; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the instant crime; and (e) the specific film content, etc., the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering all the following factors in the record and arguments.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Article 59-3(1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) ex officio determination related to an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities is a sex offense against a child or juvenile.

arrow