성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
The seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (five years of imprisonment, confiscation, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 years of disclosure and notification order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, the process of the crime of this case, and the defendant's speech and behavior immediately after the crime of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.
B. The Defendant, who made a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, has attempted to rape by using serious assault and intimidation, such as using knife, etc., to the victim, who is the spouse of a work partner, and thus, has not received serious physical and mental impulses. Therefore, considering such inferior nature of the crime, it is reasonable to impose a penalty on the Defendant.
However, considering the fact that the defendant has no particular criminal record in addition to the punishment imposed twice for the violation of the Road Traffic Act so far, the crime of rape is committed, the crime of rape is committed in the attempted crime, the rearing of his/her own mental body, the victim and the victim have not been punished for the defendant, and there is a change in circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, specific means and method of the crime of this case, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.