성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인에대한준강간등)등
The part of the judgment below's conviction, the part of the request for probation order, and the judgment of the court below's second instance.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Quasi-rape, etc. against Disabled Persons) on October 2015, 2015, the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order, the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “defendant”) (1) and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “the defendant”), claiming misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, etc. [Article 1-A], although the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim, it is difficult to see that the victim had sexual intercourse with the victim at the time, but it is difficult to see that the victim was in a difficult condition to resist due to physical disability, and the defendant did not know that the victim was in such state.
Before entering the date and time stated in the facts charged, the Defendant only perceived that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s consent to sexual intercourse by asking the victim about a defect in sexual intercourse, and by extinguishing the victim.
Unlike this, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged (the first instance judgment) erred by mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine.
(2) The first instance court’s sentence (one-year imprisonment, etc.) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim’s statement, etc., the prosecutor (1) may be found guilty of a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamerla, etc. of Sexual Crimes) that occurred early October 2015. On the contrary, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges erred by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges is unreasonable on the ground that the first sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable. (2) In light of the case of the attachment order claim and the examination result of the evaluation of the risk of recidivism by adults (public prosecutor) of the probation order claim, the lower court’s dismissal of the
B. The Defendant of the 2020No24 case (the Defendant) was drunk at the time of committing the instant crime, or was in a mental state or above.