성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강간)
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not carry excessive steps at the time of rape with the victim.
B. The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the defendant's case
A. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of committing the instant crime, he only threatened the victim as knife, and did not carry excessive amounts like the description of the facts charged.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of the first instance, namely, the victim was threatened by the investigative agency on several occasions.
In full view of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant stated clearly that the knife (the Defendant showed the knife that the knife was not considered to be proper, the knife was not considered to be excessive, and the knife was stated to be the size of excessive size). The Defendant himself considered the knife as a knife and there seems to be no special reason to make a false statement; the Defendant himself has excessively classified the knife in the course of seizure; the Defendant stated the knife of possession and the method of use in the course of investigation; and the Defendant did not dispute over the excessive possession of the knife from the stage of investigation to the trial of the first instance; and the Defendant did not dispute about the fact that the knife was unsnife from the bridge to the second stage of the trial of the first instance, and did not dispute about the excessive possession itself until that time).
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing is at the discretion.