beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2014.07.09 2013노439

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The prosecutor indicted the Defendant at the early stage of the prosecution by applying Articles 14 and 7(3) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) and Article 298 of the Criminal Act with respect to the charge of attempted indecent acts by force against minors under the age of 13, who committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (including minor rape, etc. under the age of 13). However, according to the court’s amendment of indictment at the request of the court of the court of the original instance, “Assault” is “Article 260(1) of the

1) As to the addition of the same content as mentioned in paragraph (1), the court below filed an application for amendment of a bill of indictment and obtained permission, and the court below acquitted the above facts charged and convicted the above facts charged. (b) The court below clearly stated the grounds for appeal to the effect that both of the court below appealed against the guilty portion (the facts charged in the preliminary charge), but both of the court below clearly stated the grounds for appeal to the effect that only the guilty portion (the facts charged in the preliminary charge) is erroneous facts or unreasonable sentencing, the acquitted portion of the court below's judgment is transferred to the trial in accordance with the principle of no appeal and defense, but the part is already withdrawn from the object of the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8922, Dec. 11, 2008). Accordingly, the scope of the trial in the preliminary charge is limited to the part of the court below's conviction (the facts charged in the preliminary charge).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the day of the instant case at the time of the Defendant: (a) in the mind that the Victim F was able to see and see by viewing that the Victim F dances in line with his mother’s mind on the day of the instant case; and (b) in the mind that the Victim F was able to see and see (a).