(Rape by Relatives)

2. ○○, Agriculture.

3. ○○, Agriculture.

4. Ma○○ or Labor.

Law Firm's General Law Office on Forestry

[Defendant 3] The Government of the Republic of Korea (Law Firm Doo, Attorney Park Jong-hwan et al.)

Defendant 2 and 3 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years, and by imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and 1 year and 6 months. As to Defendant 2, 65 days under confinement before the judgment of the court below is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

2. All appeals filed by Defendant 1 and the Prosecutor against Defendant 1 are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 (1) as of November 10, 204, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 (1) have lost the function of growing over 15 years prior to the age of 87, and thus, it is impossible to have sexual intercourse with the victim. Not only is it possible for the victim to have sexual intercourse, but also there is no fact that the son and son used the son to use the son’s shoulder, etc. by force. (2) Defendant 4’s indecent act by force was committed by force on November 10, 2004, there was no fact between Defendant 1’s house located outside of the Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, and there was no fact of indecent act by force on the part of the victim. (3) Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of each of the facts charged of this case on the sole basis of the victim’s statement without credibility, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant 3

The sentence imposed by the court below on the above defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor (In all of the Defendants, etc.)

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the mistake of facts by Defendant 1 and 4

In light of the above defendants' assertion that there was no indecent act by force or sexual intercourse with the victim as the grounds for appeal, the court below rejected the above defendants' assertion in detail under the title "Judgment on each argument of the defendants 1 and 4", which is the same as the grounds for appeal of this case by the above defendants in the court below. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant 3 and prosecutor

According to the records, all the Defendants have been growing up to the point of time due to economic difficulties from the time when they live in South Korea, and they have not received school education at all or have retired from elementary school, thereby failing to read and write down Korean language, etc. The circumstances that fall short of normal conditions can be acknowledged.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendants, who are in the relationship of the victim's friendship, white father, or the head of the family, has been sexually disabled by using the victim's age in the mental body condition (class 3 of intellectual disability) as a means to resolve his sexual desire, and rape or indecent act by force, and the content of the crime itself is contrary to the human body and the possibility of social criticism is very high. In addition, the victim was exposed to the above Defendants' sexual violence crime without any help from others, for a long time, by exposure to the above Defendants' sexual violence crime. In addition, even if the victim's counseling with a specialized institution, the victim appears to have suffered a big mental shock, which makes it difficult for the victim to physically and mentally, and even according to the result of the counseling with the victim at the specialized institution, it is inevitable for the victim to be his own primary group support, other than his family, who experienced a sense of inorganic mind, and it is inevitable for the Defendants to have been sentenced to the punishment of this case, which corresponds to these circumstances.

However, Defendant 1 is now aged 87 years old, and it is difficult for Defendant 1 to cope with a prison life due to 90∑ 90 and he was under direct walking walking force. In addition, considering the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendants' age, occupation and career, personality and behavior, etc., given that the sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant 1 is appropriate and too unreasonable, and it is not acknowledged that it is unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant 1 is too unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant 1 is without merit. Since the court below's punishment imposed by Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 has merit, while Defendant 3's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant 1 and the appeal by the prosecutor against the above defendant is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is with merit, the part against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and this decision

Criminal facts

The criminal facts recognized by this court against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 are the same as the entries in each corresponding column against the above Defendants in the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant 2 and 3's statement in the original trial and in the original trial;

1. Legal statement of ○○○○○ as a witness of the original judgment

1. Entry of the defendant 2 and 3 in each protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution on ○○○;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to family relation certificates and certified copies thereof;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 2 and 3: Article 7(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof and Article 297 of the Criminal Act (a)

(b) Defendant 4: Article 7(2) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof, and Article 298 of the Criminal Act (Indecent Acts by blood or marriage)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to the charge committed by Defendants 2 and 3 since the original trial, all of the facts charged are recognized, and their mistakes are divided, Defendant 4's crime does not proceed to rape, and the crime committed by Defendants 4 is about the degree of indecent act by compulsion, and the above reasons for appeal are considered as favorable

1. The inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (as to Defendant 2); and

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judges Yoon Sung-su

Judges Seo Jae- State-