성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)등
Of the guilty portion and the innocent portion of the lower judgment, the guilty portion of the lower judgment and the acquitted portion shall be respectively around June 2015, May 2017, and April 2018.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Relatives) (A) was unable to commit rape, even though he/she returned home on June 2018, and had the victim quih to face, and the victim was squih to face of the Defendant. However, there was no fact that he/she attempted to rape, even though he/she was able to commit rape.
The statements of the victim are not consistent and are inconsistent with the statements and objective circumstances of the victim, and they are not reliable.
B) On September 2016, 2014, the Defendant did not have any her chest or her tam, as stated in this part of the facts charged, with the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a indecent act by force in relation to relatives). The victim stated that the Defendant got out of the situation at the time, leading the Defendant to the front of the inside door of the ward B from the ward to get out of the situation. However, considering the victim’s age and the Defendant’s physical strength, the victim’s stated situation cannot occur physically. (C) around September 2016, when considering the victim’s age and the Defendant’s physical strength, the Defendant took dancing with the victim and attempted to go beyond the victim, but there was no fact that the victim’s chest was her chest.
The statement of the victim, the only evidence of this part of the facts charged, is not consistent, and there is no credibility. The defendant committed each violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) with golf loans around June 2012. At the time, the defendant's house did not have golf loans, and there is no evidence to deem that there was damage to the victim's body due to the defendant's physical punishment. In addition, the defendant was only punished by the victim at a scam level around December 2013 and around June 2015, and there was no fact of assaulting the victim to the extent that it constitutes "an act detrimental to the child's physical health and development." 2).