성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인준강간)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts has expanded by inserting sex accelerators, the victim has a higher gender than ordinary people, and the victim did not have prepared to accept the Defendant’s sexual organ, it was impossible for the Defendant to put his sexual organ into the part of the victim.
Accordingly, the defendant is guilty.
2.(b)
At the time of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, only attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim but did not put the sexual organ into the quality of the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had inserted the sexual organ into the victim’s quality.
2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment is too unlimited and unfair).
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 19:00 on Nov. 1, 2018, the Defendant: (b) demanded that the victim, who was frightly in the bus stops near the CD located in Yong-gun, left the Defendant’s house; (c) moved the victim to Frode to the vehicle Ewing-III, carrying the victim on board the vehicle; (d) parked the vehicle at that place; (e) taken the victim on the floor where the said public gate was carried into the said public gate; (e) taken the victim’s lower and panty; and (e) taken off the victim’s bar and panty; and (e) the Defendant exceeded the victim’s body and panty; and (e) inserted the Defendant’s sexual flag into the victim’s body, and sexual intercourse with the victim’s sexual organ, making use of the victim’s mental disability or refusing to resist; and (e) made sexual intercourse once using the victim’s mental disability.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement in the lower court was reliable, and that the lower court duly adopted.