beta
(영문) 광주고등법원 2020.01.09 2019노380

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등

Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not commit indecent acts by force as stated in the facts charged.

The possibility of committing a crime by a third party cannot be ruled out because a third party resides in the victim's residential area, and the defendant is only 74 with intelligence index and suffers from suplicious illness and alcohol dependence, so it is difficult to reject the credibility of the defendant's statement on the grounds that the defendant was unable to make consistent statements.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the sole basis of the statements made by the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, who is receiving treatment due to decentralization, spawnosis's disease, and so on, was in a state of weak ability to discern things at the time of the instant case.

C. The lower court’s decision on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Since it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is highly likely to repeat a crime, it is inappropriate for the court below to impose an attachment order for three years on the defendant.

2. Part of the defendant's case

A. The Defendant also asserted that the above assertion of mistake was identical to the above assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the judgment of the lower court.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, the defendant was found to have been given a prescription for the drug after receiving the pain treatment at a P Hospital due to the decentralization, drug-causing disease, e.g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., s