성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles
A. The Defendant: (a) committed sexual intercourse with the Defendant by taking the same attitude as knife and thereby harming the Defendant; and (b) the same situation where the victim spawned fear; and (c)
As can be seen, Defendant’s act constitutes rape with a deadly weapon provided for in Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Defendant’s act should be punished as a whole for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) inasmuch as Defendant’s victim was injured during
However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and found only guilty of bodily injury and rape, and found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) in the item “non-criminal part”, the Defendant’s act of committing the same behavior as that detrimental to the use of the knife and put the exemption into the entrance was merely for the purpose of provoking the victim’s mind; (b) there was
It does not seem that the victim is not likely to receive it seriously, and the defendant has a knife under the intention of the defendant to use rape on the basis of the detailed circumstances, such as the fact that the victim's words have been suffered by another male and the use of violence only after hearing the victim's horses by another male.
It is difficult to view the victim’s legal statement, etc. that the victim’s injury was an assault immediately before rape.
It is difficult to see
Based on the judgment, this part of the facts charged was acquitted.
Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the investigation report by the prosecutor on December 25, 2016 (hereinafter “victim’s telephone recording”) on the basis of the non-guilty portion based on the evidence, the victim’s phone call to the effect that “the victim is the same as the victim, who intends to have a sexual intercourse when the defendant intends to have a sexual intercourse while photographing a sexually related video.”