성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(절도강간등)등
1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”);
A. At the time of committing a crime in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (hereinafter “thief rape”), the Defendant was in a state that he/she had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to his/her weak intent.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in its holding, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 2 in its holding) is too unreasonable.
(c)
It is improper for the court below to order the disclosure and notification of personal information to the defendant in violation of the disclosure and notification order.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2) In light of the Defendant’s criminal records on the part of the request for attachment order, the Defendant is highly likely to repeat a sex crime in the future. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for attachment order
2. Determination
A. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court, ex officio, deemed that the Defendant had led to a confession of all the facts charged, and determined and notified that the Defendant should be tried through a simple trial procedure, and found the Defendant guilty in accordance with that procedure.
However, the Defendant stated on the first trial date of the lower court that all the facts charged were recognized (126 pages of the trial record). However, at an investigative agency, the Defendant did not properly memory the breath of the instant larceny at the time of committing rape.
I stated, and even during the trial of the court of the court below, the crime was committed in the state of conviction through written opinions, rebuttals, and court statements.
In other words, there is room to view that the defendant denies the criminal intent against the crime of larceny of this case or asserts the reason for the denial of responsibility for mental and physical loss (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2116, Jul. 9, 2004). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant is a confession of all the facts charged in the trial court, and thus, in the simplified trial procedure, it is difficult to view that the defendant is a confession.