logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노6009
강제추행
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of prosecutor's appeal grounds;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose the registered information without any specific reasons, in light of the content of the crime of this case, which was improper to exempt the disclosure disclosure order, and the possibility of recidivism.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s crime of this case committed an indecent act by force against the victim, who is an employee of the company run by himself, the sentence of the lower court ordering a fine of KRW 5,000,000 and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, disclosure of personal information of a sex offender should be given to the public, and there are special circumstances that need not be given exceptional cases.

If it is judged, it shall be removed.

There is a special reason not to disclose personal information.

Determination of whether a case constitutes “a case to be determined” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc. of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to an order of disclosure or notification, the preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effects of protecting the victims from the sexual crime subject to registration, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake, and the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, motive, progress, and gravity of the crime, and disclosure order.

arrow