성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반등
Defendant
The appeal filed by both the requester for medical treatment and custody, the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.
1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of part of the facts charged against the Defendant case and acquitted the remainder of the charges on the grounds of judgment.
Defendant
A requester for medical treatment and custody and a requester for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) filed an appeal against the part found guilty by the lower court, but the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasons.
In such a case, according to the principle of non-guilty in appeal, the part of acquittal in the reasoning is also transferred to this court along with the guilty part of the judgment of the court below. However, the part of acquittal in the reason is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, this court cannot re
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion as to the acquittal portion on the above grounds is to be followed, and the court did not separately determine the acquittal portion on the grounds.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In spite of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a mistake of facts or an attempted abandonment, thereby not reducing the sentence against the Defendant. 2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that it is unreasonable to impose an unreasonable sentence is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order even though there is a risk that the criminal defendant would recommit a sexual crime.
3. Determination
A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, in a case where the commission of the relevant legal doctrine is commenced and the commission of the crime is suspended by his own free will before the completion of the crime, the suspension is not based on circumstances that obstruct the completion of the crime under the general social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 193Da1289, Oct. 12,