성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)등
The judgment below
The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 13 years.
The defendant shall be 120 hours.
1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information among the facts charged in the instant case, dismissed all the prosecutions pertaining to the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, and sentenced the Defendant guilty of only the remaining sexual crimes against the victim E.
In this regard, the prosecutor appealed only the part of the judgment below's conviction, and the remaining part of the acquittal and dismissal of the public prosecution were finalized as it is, according to the reason that the prosecutor did not separately appeal the part of the judgment below'
Since the aforementioned not guilty part and the dismissed part of the prosecution are excluded from the subject of the judgment of this court, the part concerning sexual crimes against the victim E is ultimately subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant and the claimant for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”): The victim’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged that the Defendant committed sexual assault against the victim is a false statement made according to the intent of the I (victim’s friendly money) where a divorce lawsuit is pending with the Defendant, and its credibility cannot be acknowledged.
However, the court below accepted the credibility of the charges and found the defendant guilty on the basis of it.
This decision was made by the court below by misunderstanding the facts.
2) Claim 2 of misunderstanding of facts: even if the Defendant had sexual contact with the victim, this was committed under mutual agreement with the victim, i.e., the Defendant, who had distorted sexual orientation, and was under the influence of sexual intercourse. Therefore, the victim’s right to sexual self-determination was infringed.
The defendant's defense counsel can not be seen as the ground for appeal that the sentencing was unfair on the first trial date. However, the defendant's defense counsel argued that the sentencing was unfair on the grounds of appeal.