성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the statements of E claiming misunderstanding of facts are not consistent as a whole, the core part is consistent, specific, and cannot be seen as inconsistent with objective facts and facts.
In addition, according to the evidence submitted by the defendant, there are circumstances to support this part of the crime.
Therefore, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and raped the victim.
must be viewed.
However, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the E’s statement is not consistent, and it is difficult to believe that it violates the objective facts and facts, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.
Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence in the period of eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged in detail on the grounds of the determination on the assertion of mistake of facts.
In light of the records, the evidence presented by the prosecutor, such as E’s statement, alone, that the defendant invadedd the victim’s residence, such as this part of the charges, and raped the victim.
It is difficult to readily conclude.
Ultimately, this part of the facts charged is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
As such, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged in the prosecutor’s assertion that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.
3. The Defendant committed a theft of KRW 200,000 in total by intrusion upon the victim D’s residence at night, on two occasions, at night.
In light of the substance of the crime, the nature of the crime is less severe.
shall not be required to do so.
However, it is relatively against the defendant's confession of all of the crimes of this case and the amount of damage.