성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part concerning the defendant’s case and the part concerning the request for probation order as to the part concerning the request for probation order. Since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal as to the part concerning the request for
Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Electronic Monitoring, etc. Act, the part of the judgment below regarding probation order claim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the
2. The summary of the grounds of appeal does not intend to rape the victim, but rather, commits an indecent act such as gathering the victim’s chests in mind to maintain internal relations with the victim, etc., and inflicted an injury on the victim with a knife, and thus, it constitutes a concurrent crime against the crime of indecent act by compulsion and special injury.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape Injury) among the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles which affected the conclusion
3. Determination
A. The crime of rape, bodily injury, or rape injury refers to a change in a victim’s physical condition to a bad condition and a disability in his/her living function. The result of such injury is sufficient if not only the act of rape itself, but also the act of rape itself, but also the act of rape, such as where the injury was caused by violence, which is the means thereof, closely related at the time and place, or where the act of rape was caused by the act of rape, or where the act of rape was caused by the act of rape.
Supreme Court Decision 99Do519 Decided April 9, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1256 Decided May 30, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2935 Decided July 12, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 9Do519 Decided September 11, 2008