성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.
The defendant shall be 120 hours.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the attempted rape of a minor under the age of 13 from July 2014 to August, 2014, the Defendant’s forced indecent act and abuse of force against a minor under the age of 13 from October to November, 2014, and the attempted rape of a minor under the age of 13 from August 22 to 24, 2015, and sentenced the Defendant to an order to complete a program for sexual assault treatment for nine years and 120 hours.
Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing, and the Prosecutor changed the date and time of committing the crime of attempted rape of minors under the age of 13 from August 22, 2015 to August 24, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case, to “the time and time of committing the crime of attempted rape of minors under the age of 13 from July 17 to August 12, 2015,” and changed the same to “the time and time of committing the crime.”
Before the remand, the trial rejected the prosecutor’s application for changes in the indictment, closed arguments, and reversed the judgment of the court below after partially accepting the defendant’s appeal. The judgment below acquitted the defendant about attempted rape of a minor under the age of 13 on August 22, 2015 or around 24, and convicted the defendant of the remaining facts charged, and ordered the defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program for seven years and 120 hours.
Therefore, the Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations regarding the guilty portion in the judgment prior to remanding, in violation of logical and empirical rules, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the credibility of the statement, and that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, the Prosecutor erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged in the amendment of indictment regarding the
The Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the court before remanding through the judgment of the court before remanding, and decides not to dismiss the defendant's assertion of the grounds for appeal as to the guilty part of the judgment before remanding, and the facts charged before and after the change.