2.B

A. Error of mistake

The degree of injury suffered by the victim is minor and does not constitute injury to the crime of rape injury.

(c) the Commission;

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

The reason why the injury resulting from rape is extremely minor and thus, if there is no need for treatment and there is no obstacle in natural therapy and daily life, it does not constitute the injury of the crime of injury resulting from rape. However, such argument is based on the premise that the injury is likely to occur in a daily life even though there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance or that it is the same degree as the injury normally likely to occur in sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement, or that the injury exceeding such degree is caused by such violence or intimidation. Whether the victim's health condition is modified as bad and has a disability in his/her living function should not be objectively and uniformly determined, but rather on the basis of the victim's age, gender, physical and mental condition, such as physical and mental condition (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1039, May 26, 2005).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim visited the hospital on July 26, 201, which was two days after the date of the instant accident, and received medical treatment for the joints of the arms and tur, etc.

According to the medical examination of injury issued by the above hospital, the injured part and degree of the victim's injury are equal to the east and left part of the upper right part, the left part and the left part of the case, and the 2nd, the right part, the left part and the middle part of the case. The expected treatment period is 14 days from the day when the criminal complaint was filed against the crime of this case on the same day, and the victim submitted the above medical examination of injury to the police at the time when the victim took photographs of the upper part of the right part and the left part of the case at the time. The victim was 22 years of age and 25 years of age as a woman of 22 years of age and 25 years of age, and the defendants went out of the passenger's body, and the defendant went out of the passenger's body and the body part of the victim's body and the body part of the victim's body cannot be seen as being seriously affected by the above legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Both the Defendants are first offenders without any previous conviction. The Defendants confessioned all the crimes during the police investigation process, and repented in depth. The Defendants first come to commit the instant crime after drinking alcohol for a considerable period of time in combination with the victim at the front door and the singing line. The Defendants were all attempted rape, which is the basic crime of the instant case. The Defendants agreed with the victim and the victim wanting to take the part of the Defendants. Such agreement is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants conspired and attempted to rape a female under 22 years of age. In particular, in light of the fact that the Defendants, who were exempted from the whole clothes of the victim, are faced with the victim’s face, and one person, who is in his hand, is not very good, to simultaneously leap with the victim’s chest and fluor with the victim’s chest, etc. In addition, there were significant pains that the victim was suffering. In addition, the lower court’s sentence after mitigation of the sentence of the law was sentenced to the maximum sentence, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendants to take further measures.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Since the defendants' appeal is groundless, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The number of refined trees

100 Ma30