성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수준강간)등
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A. B. Imprisonment for eight months, and Defendant B.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles - 1) Defendant A, as a male-child tool of the victim, was aware of the victim’s house as the former male-child room, did not cause the victim under the influence of alcohol, but did not look at the victim’s house (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).
2) The Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with the Defendant 1 to engage in the act of quasi-rape. The Defendant 1 and 2 had the victim engage in the act of quasi-rape and attempted to engage in sexual intercourse. The Defendant 1 and 2 to engage in the act of quasi-rape, unlike rape, was established by having the victim engage in sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s mental or physical condition or the state of non-performance to resist. Thus, unlike rape, the Defendant 1 and 2 had the victim engage in sexual intercourse. As long as the Defendant 1 and 2 had the victim under the influence of alcohol and had the victim to engage in the act of quasi-rape or to resist, the Defendant 1 and 2 had the victim engage in sexual intercourse with the victim. The Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have engaged in the act of quasi-rape. In light of the fact that the Defendant 1 and 2’s act of quasi-rape had the victim under the influence of alcohol.
3) Nevertheless, Defendant A and B’s act does not constitute a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape) and Defendant C’s act aiding and abetting the act also constitutes a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (non-special quasi-rape, and the judgment below dismissing this part of the public prosecution is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is unreasonably and unreasonably weak.
2. The judgment of the court below is ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, and the defendant A is Qin.