성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)
All appeals are dismissed.
1. According to the ex officio judgment on the appeal by the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order A, the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) have waived the right to appeal and appealed only on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, but the lower court dismissed the appeal by the prosecutor on the ground that the appeal by the prosecutor is groundless.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to be a disadvantageous judgment against Defendant A, and there is no right to appeal against this. Thus, the appeal filed by Defendant A against the judgment of the court below is unlawful.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2619 Decided February 8, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do798 Decided March 13, 2008, etc.). 2. Determination as to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order B
A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant and the respondent for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) guilty of the violation of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (sexual intercourse under the age of 13 by force) and the violation of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape against the disabled). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of the freedom of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, the concept of power in violation of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Punishment, etc. of Victims of Sexual Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of the non-performance of right
In addition, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, pursuant to the main text of Article 38(1) and (3), and the main text of Article 38-2(1) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.