성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등치상)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, such as mistake of facts, etc., accurately found the victim’s house, and that the Defendant is clearly memoryed before and after the crime except rape, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant case. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the Defendant’s mental and physical condition, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years
B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court: (a) found that the Defendant had the record of receiving hospital treatment due to alcohol addiction from around 30 years of age to before and after the instant crime was committed; (b) deemed that the Defendant had repeated drinking without little meals until before and after the instant crime was committed; and (c) found that the Defendant had had the intention to commit a crime since drinking since the Defendant committed the crime.
In light of the fact that the Defendant was not likely to have predicted the commission of the instant crime or that it was revealed in the background of the instant crime, the victim’s statement, etc., and the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the instant crime, the lower court determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.
In full view of the above circumstances cited by the court below and the fact that the defendant was walking in the direction of the victim's house without reliance when he was arrested as a flagrant offender (the 11th page of the trial record), the above decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as argued by the prosecutor.
Therefore, the prosecutor on this part.