성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)등
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal - misunderstanding the legal principles on the part of the case against the defendant (public prosecutor) - The part of the judgment of the court below dismissing the public prosecution was raped two or four times a week from the investigative agency to the court of the court below by the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")
In light of the fact that a statement is made by the Defendant, and that it is difficult to specify the date, place, etc. of the crime by repeatedly repeating a similar crime for a period from the time when the victim died to the time 14 days from the time when the victim died, the date and time of each of the charges alleged in the dismissed part of the judgment below was sufficiently specified.
Although the court below dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the unclear facts charged of this case”) on the grounds that it is unspecified in the facts charged, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged.
With respect to the sentencing (the defendant and the prosecutor), the defendant asserts that the sentencing (the 17-year imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is unfair because it is too unfeasible to the contrary.
The prosecutor asserts that it is improper for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for attachment order even though there is a risk of recidivism.
Judgment
Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the part of the instant case ought to stipulate the time, date, place, and method of a crime to specify the facts.
The purport of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and speediness of the trial by limiting the object of the trial and, at the same time, to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense.
Therefore, with respect to the date and time of double prosecution or prescription, the prosecutor's identification of whether the place falls under the jurisdiction of the land and the method of the crime composition.