성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등간음)
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is unreasonable because the punishment (each imprisonment of four years, 40 hours, 5 years, and 5 years) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the lower court ex officio examined the Defendants’ grounds for appeal, and applied Articles 6(5) and 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes to the Defendants.
However, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; Article 1 of the Addenda to the Act provides that “this Act shall enter into force on the date six months have elapsed after its promulgation;” The amendment includes Articles 6(5), 16(2), 37, and 41 applicable to this case. In particular, Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was modified disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as that the upper limit of the order to complete a program was extended from 300 hours before the amendment to 50 hours after the amendment, and thus, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was applied to the crime of this case committed by the Defendants, which were committed on April 2, 2013 prior to the enforcement of the said Act.
Nevertheless, the court below did not apply the former Act before the amendment as an act-making corporation, but applied the former Act after the amendment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' request for unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court are as follows, with the exception that "Raped the victim with mental disorder due to force" in the third 8, fourth 1, and second 2 of the judgment of the court below to mean " sexual intercourse with the victim with mental disorder due to force", each of the relevant columns of the court below.