In view of the above, he requested that the defendant's sentence be placed in the center of the compound and petitioned to impose on him 4.5 years in prison for the first charge and six months imprisonment for the second charge and 5 years imprisonment for the first charge, compensation for the victims of the first charge not less than a total of ILS 5,000 for each victim of the offense of sexual harassment and ILS 3,000 for each victim of the offense of invasion of privacy without sexual harassment. Fine and suspended imprisonment.
- Counsel for the defendant, Attorney Shiran Bergman, petitioned at the beginning of his arguments to refrain from sending the defendant to a prison sentence behind bars, emphasizing that the defendant was young at the time of the offenses he was about 21 years old and is now 23 years old, had completed 12 years of schooling, served full military service in a classified unit, had complex life circumstances, had no criminal record, took responsibility for his actions at the interrogation stage and spared the complainants' testimony. The defendant leads a normative lifestyle, persists in his work and is about to marry.
Counsel for the defendant referred to the risk assessment, according to which he is not characterized as having a sexual deviance and there is no evidence of an attempt to contact minors offline. In addition, he referred to the Probation Service's reports, which showed that he had persisted in the group and individual therapeutic process, and that all of these in his opinion should justify deviating from the punishment range for considerations of justice, and alternatively, placing him at the bottom of the compound, since his incarceration would cause irreparable damage to him and his family.
According to the defense's approach, one penalty area should be determined for the two charges, since we are dealing with a single affair, which was carried out in close proximity, where in one section of the second charge of the amended indictment, it was stated by the accuser that the first charge constitutes an integral part of the second charge. Referring to the ruling, he petitioned for a punishment range ranging from 18 months to 36 months. In his reference to the ruling submitted on behalf of the accuser, he noted that the accuser referred to a case law that deals with the injury of a larger number of victims than in the case at hand. In addition, it was claimed that the financial gain was not at the high level.