logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.03.30 2015노371
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강도강제추행)등
Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) shall be mitigated from punishment on the grounds that the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was issued, were physically and mentally deprived or physically weak at the time of committing the instant crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of 10 years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order, and 7 years of disclosure and notification of disclosed information) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court, which ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device in the absence of risk of committing robbery, is unreasonable, and is not so.

Even if the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, the period is too long so unfair.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. The mental and physical disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder requires that mental disorder, such as mental disorder or abnormal mental condition, other than mental disorder, caused by such mental disorder, lack or decrease in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disability was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, he cannot be deemed a mental and physical disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425 delivered on August 18, 192, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, even though the defendant was found to have drinking three (3) hours prior to the crime described in paragraph (1) of the crime of the court below, it is recognized by each of the above evidence, i.e., that the defendant intrudes on the victim's residence through the second floor bend and upper window, and that the defendant did not report the victim's face with his intent to prevent the victim from doing indecent act.

arrow