성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등치상)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
With respect to the part of the case of the defendant, the court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed, and the part on which the request for attachment order was filed, and the part on which the defendant appealed. As such, with respect to the part on which the request for attachment order was filed and the part on which the request for protective order was filed, the court below excluded this part from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding Articles 9 (8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the
The main facts of the grounds for appeal, misunderstanding the legal principles, or misunderstanding the victim’s injury is a 8m and depth of 2m from the water date. At the time, the expected treatment period was about 2m from the water date. However, it is difficult to see that the actual treatment period is about 2m. In general, it is very insignificant in the length and depth of the body, and there is no evidence about how the damaged person received any treatment after the feling surgery, and there is a high possibility that the injured person was suffering from the injury, unless the injured person was within the hospital and did not receive any treatment. Therefore, the injury suffered by the victim does not constitute “injury” in the crime of causing rape.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” on the 3-4 side of the said judgment by asserting that the Defendant had the same ground for appeal as that of the foregoing appeal. In light of the evidence of this case, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations by the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
(2).