logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.04.18 2016노250
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, protection observation, community service order 120 hours, and order to attend a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) Considering the attitude of the Defendant’s act to be exempted from disclosure disclosure notification order and the nature of the crime, etc., the disadvantage and side effect of the Defendant due to disclosure notification order cannot be less than the profit and preventive effect expected from disclosure notification order. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure notification order.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, based on the following factors: (a) the Defendant denied the instant crime and did not reflect it; (b) the nature of the instant crime was heavy; and (c) the Defendant failed to receive a letter from the injured party and did not take measures to recover damage; but (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year, suspension of execution, two years, observation of protection, community service order, 120 hours; and (d) 40 hours of attending a sexual assault treatment program, taking into account the fact that the Defendant is the primary offender; and (d) the type and degree of the criminal history

In full view of the above sentencing conditions and the victim's age at the time of the court below and three times, and the defendant recognized the crime of this case at the time of the appellate trial and agreed smoothly with the victim, and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year for which the defendant selected imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case and sentenced two years of suspended sentence is too heavy or uneasible.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

B. The prosecutor’s allegation that exemption from disclosure disclosure order is unfair.

arrow