성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.
A sexual assault treatment program against the defendant.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In each of the facts charged in this case, the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") asserted that the date and time of the crime are not specified properly, and thus, cannot be deemed public prosecution that includes specific facts constituting a crime, making it considerably difficult to exercise the defendant's right to defense. Thus, the indictment of this case constitutes a case where the prosecution
Although the defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts has committed a minor physical contact with the victims in the course of raising victims, he/she did not commit a crime identical to each crime at the time of the original trial.
The Defendant served as a taxi engineer on a five-day day in a usual day and a one-day day. The day when the weekends and holidays fall on one-time and two-time a month, and the day when the week falls on one-day off, but the day when the week falls on one-day screen with a taxi engineer on the day off around 2012, while working on 11:0, the day when 17:30, when he worked at one-day house at 19:0, he again worked at one-day house at 19:0, and he returned to 2:00 on the following day, while the victims returned to the house at 15:00 a day, the victims were unable to enter the house again at around 18:0 a day without any time, and thus, the victims cannot be found to have been in fact at the same time as the Defendant’s house.
Nevertheless, the lower court that found all of the charges of this case guilty on the sole basis of the statements made by the victims without credibility is unlawful.
The sentence of imprisonment (eight years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
Each of the crimes in this case committed by the prosecutor (unfairness) is that the defendant habitually committed or attempted to commit sexual intercourse with the aged victims, and it is good that the crime is committed.