beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017노2410

강간미수

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was unable to hold the body under the influence of alcohol in the court.

The defendant was unable to resist his body.

The statement was made to the effect that "the escape was made."

This is supported by the statement that the victim’s workplace Dong I received the word “heat” from the injured party, and the victim requested the help by telephone.

Defendant also stated “At the time, the victim is required to do so.”

1 1 3 1 1 1 13

It was stated that “it was true that it was”.

In the CCTV image at the entrance of the Moel, it is revealed that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and that the victim was not voluntarily into the Moel.

In full view of these evidence, the charges of attempted rape against the defendant are sufficiently proved.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participatory trial introduced to enhance democratic legitimacy and trust in judicial judgment, collective opinions presented by jurors to the full bench on finding facts shall have the effect of recommending to assist the judgment of the judge of the fact-finding court under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trial.

In cases where a jury participated in the whole process of a fact-finding and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion on the preparation of evidence and fact-finding is adopted as they are in conformity with the jury's conviction, the lower court's judgment on the preparation of evidence and fact-finding need to be respected on one story, unless there are sufficient and sufficiently opposite circumstances to him/her through a new examination of evidence in the appellate trial, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065, Mar. 25, 2010).