beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.05.10 2013노581

강간치상

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below rejected the victim's statement and acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the victim's statement is not consistent with the facts charged of rape of this case. Considering the mental impulse and fear suffered at the time of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, considering that it is natural that the victim was unable to make accurate statements on the facts charged of rape of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the Defendant forced the victim E to leave the house of the victim, forced him to leave the chest, knife him to the right knife, and applied her face to the victim’s right knife, and tried to put his hand into the victim’s knife in the victim’s knife, but the victim tried to her knife and resist, but the victim her sound and flifeed, she tried to rape the victim after leaving the victim’s knife the victim’s knife to knife the knife the knife of the victim’s knife, but she did not go back to the victim’s knife the victim’s knife the victim’s knife, and thereby, the victim suffered injury, such as brain flin,

B. The evidence consistent with the above facts charged in the judgment of the court below is the victim E's statement, the 119 rescue unit G's statement and emergency medical services, which were dispatched to the scene of this case. Among them, the victim's statement is against the statement to the effect that "it is not consistent with the victim's statement, such as the victim E's statement, 119 rescue unit G's statement and the victim's statement were first made only the assault damage but later made an additional statement about the attempted rape. When the victim's statement about the attempted rape was repeated, the details and degree of the crime are serious, and it is low credibility." The 119 rescue unit G statement sent to the site of this case is against the statement to the effect that "A police officer I and K's statement was not