성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of five years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found the Defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order - misunderstanding of facts (a special residential intrusion in the lower judgment) guilty of the special residential intrusion that the Defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) invadedd the residence by carrying out excessive personal data, which is dangerous objects.
However, the defendant did not intrude into a residence by carrying a dangerous article in excess of it.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the part concerning Defendant case A) - Of the lower judgment, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize the intent of rape and quasi-rape with respect to the Defendant’s residential intrusion, rape, and quasi-rape.
However, in light of the defendant's act known by the statements of the victims, it can be recognized that the defendant had the intention of rape and quasi-rape.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts of innocence.
B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is unreasonable as it is too uneasible. 2) The part regarding the request for attachment order - misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are difficult to recognize the possibility that the Defendant would devise legal peace by recommitting a sexual crime in the future.
However, in light of the fact that the defendant intrudes on the residence of many victims several times to resolve sexual desire and actually commits a sexual crime more than twice, the defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime in the future.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the claim for attachment order.
2. Ex officio determination
A. The court below found the prosecutor not guilty on the ground that he was guilty.