The prosecution against rape in the facts charged of this case is dismissed.

From around 09:30 to 10:40 on August 31, 201, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim’s face at the rooftop of the victim E (V) located in the multi-household house located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around 09:30 to around 10:40 so that the Defendant cannot be seen as the Defendant by covering the victim’s face with the victim’s face; (b) threatened the victim with the victim’s hand over several times by following the victim’s hand, etc.; (c) threatened the victim with the tape to the transparent tape; (d) threatened the victim with the tape to prevent the sound from spreading; and (e) took sexual intercourse with the victim’s face; and (e) 150,000 won in cash, which was inside the victim’s face near the bend of the bend; and (e) took place by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The second and third protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by capturing a photograph at the scene of occurrence, a place adjacent to the place of occurrence, a route of escape, or a CCTV image near the approaching site;

1. Article 33 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel as to the grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of taking money and valuables at the time of rape, and brought the victim’s property without assault or threat while escaping from the scene of the crime of rape. The part of taking property constitutes larceny, not the crime of robbery.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the judgment of this court can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, it can be said that the defendant took the victim’s property by taking advantage of the victim’s state of difficulty to resist due to assault and intimidation immediately after the rape was committed.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

(1)