성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강간)등
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty of the reasoning of the judgment below)
A. According to the evidence presented, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of rape on October 16, 2016, since the victim was fully aware of the fact that he was a disabled person at the time of the crime on October 16, 2016.
B. The lower court recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on this, proved that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see
The Court rendered a not-guilty verdict.
Examining the various circumstances cited by the lower court in a thorough and consistent manner with the record, there is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the lower court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.
We do not accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower judgment erred by mistake in fact on the premise different from this premise.
2. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too excessive and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence against the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair.
If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the ground that the new sentencing data was not submitted by the said court, and there is no change in
The crime of this case is not likely to be committed in the course of or indecent conduct on another attempted rape despite the defendant's 32 years of age or young victims being raped once and being aware of the intellectual disability of the victim.