logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.03.21 2013노3229
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)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. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental disorder, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the considerable low risk of thinking due to intellectual disability, depression, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was treated as "a grogratory accident or refluorous fluorous fluor" before the crime of this case, but according to the statement of a mental appraisal attached to the notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the defendant of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center prepared by the commission of mental appraisal at the court below, the defendant has an intellectual function at the boundary line level that is not classified into mental disorder, and the symptoms such as collision adjustment disorder and lack of ability to recognize mental disorder, and it is recognized that the defendant has not been observed. In full view of various circumstances such as the process, method and method of the crime of this case, the content of the crime, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, it is not recognized that the defendant had a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case

B. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing is highly likely to be criticized that the Defendant committed an indecent act against neighbors in a planned and repeated manner, and the victim and his/her family members appear to be sufficient shock and ex post facto gift, but did not recover from damage, and the victim was punished by severe punishment against the Defendant. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant is against the instant crime.

arrow