성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on November 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant date”).
() Around 00:00, the Defendant was the victim’s house, and the Defendant was raped at the victim’s house around 07:00 on the same day, and there was no intention to intrude into his residence. Even if the Defendant had the intention to intrude into his house, the victim was in a situation where the victim was able to return his house key at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant was scambling the victim, and the Defendant was scambling the victim. In light of the fact that the Defendant provided drinking water to the Defendant, the Defendant’s act of intrusion upon residence should be deemed to constitute illegality by the victim’s real or presumed consent. However, the part concerning rape (hereinafter “Rape part of the instant case”).
In addition, the part of the residential intrusion (hereinafter “the part of the instant residential intrusion”) other than the said part.
(2) The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the order to complete sexual assault treatment programs with imprisonment of 5 years and 80 hours, and to disclose and notify information for 7 years) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the representative of the private call taxi business, “L,” and the Defendant and E refer I to “Meat” or “Secretary”.
(5) Of the third trial records, E running a private call taxi business as the Defendant in the same manner as the Defendant is consistent from the prosecution to the trial court, “A victim is at least 0 hours prior to the date of the instant case.”