logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.30 2019노529
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below sentenced the defendant to a conviction for a prosecuted case, dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding a request for attachment order, and sentenced the defendant to probation ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3 (2) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act"), and only the defendant appealed.

Therefore, according to Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Electronic Monitoring Act, the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding the part concerning the defendant's case and the part concerning the ex officio probation order, if the defendant files an appeal against the part concerning the defendant's case among the judgment below, the part concerning the request for attachment order or the part concerning the request for probation order, shall be deemed as filing an appeal. The part concerning the probation order issued by the court ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act shall be deemed as identical to this, and therefore, the part concerning the probation order issued by the court pursuant to Article 21-3(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act shall be deemed as filing an appeal against the defendant.

limited to this section.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant, such as mental and physical illness, was suffering from various mental illness, such as editing and modernization, anti-competitive disorder, mixed uneasiness, and alcohol dependence symptoms, and was in a state of weak ability or decision-making ability to discern things by drinking alcohol.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize mental illness of the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s improper order of employment restriction is a child or juvenile against the Defendant.

arrow