logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.22 2019노2468
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, forty hours of sexual assault treatment course, confiscation) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) (amended by Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offense, the court shall, by judgment, order the operation of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or the provision of actual labor to persons with disabilities for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final and conclusive) or the execution thereof is suspended or exempted (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) to be sentenced simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case, and the proviso to Article 59-3(1)

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act and has not been finally determined.

Since the crime of this case constitutes a sex offense to which Article 59-3 (1) of the above Act applies, the court of the court below erred in omitting the order or exemption from the employment restriction of the disabled person, since the court of the court below erred in omitting the order, the judgment of the court below is bound to reverse the whole of the judgment below, and therefore it cannot be maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[The reasons for the judgment of multiple times] crime and crime.

arrow