성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인준강간등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not have any intent to induce sexual intercourse on the premise that the Defendant was unaware of the victim being a person with intellectual disability. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the inducement of sexual intercourse or by misapprehending the fact.
B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the victim was a intellectual disabled person who is difficult to exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination, even though it was in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.
2. The prosecutor ex officio determination at the trial maintains the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape-rape, etc. of the Disabled) among the facts charged in the instant case. In addition, the name of the offense was ‘non-incompetent of mental disability', applicable provisions of Acts are added as stated in the following facts charged, and the facts charged are added as stated in the crime column: (a) the crime was committed alternatively; (b) Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.; (c) the applicable provisions of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic; and (d) Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Commercial Sex Acts, etc. of Arranging Sexual Crimes); and (d)
However, as seen later, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect, since the additional facts charged are found guilty.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and since the defendant contests the ancillary charges added in the trial, it is also to judge it together.
Since it is found guilty of preliminary facts charged, it is a separate charge for selective facts.