beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, 2 years, 80 hours’ orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 3 years’ employment restriction orders) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined a sentence in consideration of various circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the record of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing was neglected to the reasonable scope of discretion and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
(A) The judgment of ex officio on the registration of personal information on March 3, 201 is recognized to be guilty of both the crime of indecent act by force, quasi-indecent act by force, and the crime of bodily injury, not the crime subject to registration, but the crime of indecent act by force, and the crime of indecent act by force, and the crime of bodily injury, which are not the crime subject to registration, by deeming that each of the above crimes is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single
However, as Article 45(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes applies to this case, the court below omitted the registration period, even though it is necessary to additionally examine whether the registration period of personal information against the defendant is deemed unreasonable to be determined as the period prescribed in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of the same Article.
Therefore, it is judged ex officio.
The period of the registration of personal information of the defendant.