Rape injury, death without injury, violation of Emergency Medical Treatment Act, bodily injury, property damage;

Fraud, Specialized Credit Finance Business Act Violation, thief, Embezzlement, Violation of Road Traffic Act;

Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Operation without License) and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Seo-gu, Daejeon:

Reference domicile Daejeon: Omission below the Posi-gu

The information on the accused shall be disclosed and notified through an information and communications network for ten years.

1. Embezzlement;

At around 03:30 on February 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received the victim’s custody of the victim, from the victim, one cash, and 500,000 won of the market price containing KRW 13,00,00,000, while drinking the victim’s DD and alcohol from the sponser Park Seo-gu Park, Seodong-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, and at the same time, embezzled the victim’s custody for the victim. However, the Defendant rejected the return of the wall and embezzled it.

2. Injury to ① victim (1)

The Defendant offered to the victim's OO, at the above date, at a place, that "I am within three months, and I am a kind of son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's

3. Larceny;

The Defendant asked the victim MDM to ask whether he/she has been in possession of his/her wall by asking the victim's phone at the above date, time, place, and the victim's statement that he/she had. ① The victim's (i) the victim's fault, ① the victim's (ii) the victim's fault, ② the victim's (i) the victim's cellular phone, the market price of which is 90,000 won, was 90,000 won.

4. Fraud or violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

피고인은 2012. 2. 12. 05:10경 대전 유성구 봉명동에 있는 지에스25시 대온장점 편의점에서, 담배를 구입하면서 제1항 기재와 같이 횡령한 위 ①①① 명의의 농협 직불카드를 마치 피고인이 정당한 소지인인 것처럼 그곳 직원인 ▷▷▷에게 제시하여 대금인 2,500원의 매출전표를 작성하게 한 후 그 매출전표의 서명란에 서명하여 교부하였고, 그 자리에서 이에 속은 ▷▷▷로부터 위 편의점 업주인 피해자 000이 소유한 시가 2,500원 상당의 레종 담배 1갑을 교부받아 편취하고, 횡령한 직불카드를 사용하였다.

5. Rape;

On March 2, 2012, 23:0 to 24:00, the Defendant: around 33-1, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, stated that the victim 's 's 23 years old will enter the same,' was demanded, but the victim's sexual intercourse was refused, and the head and face were faced with the wall, and it was reported as soon as possible. The Defendant reported to the victim. The Defendant was 10 trillion won to 3 p.m., 00 p. 4 p.m., and the Defendant was 1 p.m. 9 p.m. at the time of 00 p.m., :00 p.m. : 1 p.m., 200 p.m., :00 p.m., 1.m., 2000 p.m., 1.m., 3000 p.m. m. to the police station.

6. Making an accusation;

On March 3, 2012, around 00:48, the Defendant thought that the victim, who was raped as above, did not have any clothes and was aware of the body of the victim, was able to know about the escapeer and the victim, to file a complaint for the crime of rape, and first, had the victim tried to file a complaint for larceny.

On March 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 02:10 on March 3, 2012, the Daejeon Western Police Station located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (b) prepared a complaint to the effect that “The Defendant ○○, who is the Defendant, received 400,000 won from the complainants and received 400,000 won as the price for sexual traffic, and took one half of the complainants after deducting 308; and (c) submitted the complaint to DEO in the circumstances in which the Defendant belongs.”

As such, the Defendant brought a non-victim.

7. Damage to property;

On March 12, 2012, at around 03:30, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 1069, the Defendant damaged the building outer walls of the victim NN, thereby destroying another day equivalent to KRW 170,000,000, the next market price, by spreading the front day of the outer walls of the building in the potato pota, managed by the victim NN.

8. 피해자 ▦▦▦에 대한 상해

피고인은 전항과 같은 일시, 장소에서 피해자 ▦▦▦, ⅢⅢⅢ 등과 술을 마시던 중 피해자가 손바닥으로 자신의 뺨을 툭툭 건드렸다는 이유로 피해자를 폭행하려 하여 일행들이 이를 제지하며 피해자를 데리고 밖으로 나가자 피해자를 쫓아가 발로 피해자의 왼쪽 가슴부위를 1회 걷어차 바닥에 넘어뜨렸다.

Accordingly, the Defendant forced the victim to leave the taxi door by forcing him to leave the taxi door, and caused the victim to go to the house, and led the victim to the face of the victim and the chests. The victim was faced with the Defendant’s assault into the knife restaurant at the time the victim was inflicted on the knife of the knife. The Defendant forced the victim to take care of the victim’s face, the knife of the knife, and the knife of the chest.

In addition, the police officers and first respond to the scene of the 119 first medical service workers who were called up after receiving a report, and the defendants, who were about to move to the scene and return the victim to the nearby hospital, have been suffering from steel and flooding the victim, "Iskhs," and the victim's face, who is expected to take part in it, was unfolded once every time. In this regard, the defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as an internal wall and an internal wall bomb, which requires about 8 weeks of medical treatment.

9. Violation of Emergency Medical Treatment Act;

No person shall interfere with rescue, transfer, first aid or medical treatment of an emergency patient by emergency medical personnel by means of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, force or other means.

전항과 같은 일시경 대전서부소방서 갈마119안전센터 소속 응급의료종사자인은 응급환자인 ▦▦▦ 관련 신고를 받고 현장에 도착하여 ▦▦▦의 상태를 확인하고 ▦▦▦의 거동이 어렵다고 판단하여 접이식 들것을 이용하여 ▦▦▦를 119구급차량에 태워 인근 병원으로 후송하려고 하였다. 이에 피고인은 ▦▦▦가 병원으로 후송되는 것을 막을 목적으로 열려져 있는 구급차량 뒷문을 손으로 세게 닫고, 접이식 들것을 손으로 밀치며 의 앞을 가로막고서 "야, 너희들은 철수해. 여기 왜 왔어. 내가 이 씹할 놈을 죽이면 상해 치사냐."라며 발로 ▦▦▦의 얼굴부위를 1회 힘껏 내려찍었다. 이로써 피고인은 응급의료종사자인 119 구급대원 의 정당한 응급환자 이송조치를 방해하였다.

10. Injury to victims'OO;

On May 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 01:45, around 01:45, the Defendant divided the victim’s OO (n, 29 years of age) of the victim, who was parked in the middle of the amburg in the amburgic amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg) of the amburgian (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg (s) of the amburg. ** amburging the victim’s relationship with the other male and the amburg.

The Defendant is** Bo*** A person who drives a passenger car in heading **

On June 1, 2012, the Defendant driven the said car without a driver’s license on June 23:10, 2012, and led the Defendant to drive the said car from the Seocheon-dong 299-42, Jungcheon-gu, Daejeon to the right side of the victim 100 to the right side from the right side to the right side of the mountain. In such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to take a person driving a motor vehicle into account the right side and the left side, to accurately manipulate the steering system and the brake system, and to prevent the accident from occurring.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by negligence in the course of his duties, was placed in front of the above passenger vehicle's parking lot owned by the victim and damaged the repair cost of KRW 1,000,000.

The defendant is a holder of the foregoing ticket. No motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the car without mandatory insurance as stated in Paragraph 11, such as the date and place mentioned in Paragraph 11, and as stated in Paragraph 11. The personal information is registered.

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive with respect to a crime of rape or injury on the judgment that is subject to registration under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the accused shall be a person to be recorded, such as personal information, etc. under Article 32 of the same Act and shall be obligated to submit personal information to the competent agency

Summary of Evidence

【paragraphs 1 through 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. The statement of the defendant to the effect that in the fourth trial record, the victim's damage was inflicted upon the victim's DNA, and the purchase of goods at a convenience store using the victim's DNA card is made;

1. Each legal statement of the witness0 and DD;

1. Statement of investigation by police (victim(1) ① Use of cards, etc.); and

1. Statement in accordance with the part and degree of the injury as indicated in the judgment, among ① medical certificate with respect to a doctor, prepared by a doctor of 000;

1. An entry in a written statement prepared by 000;

1. Descriptions of the details of passbook transactions and the details of transactions from entry and withdrawal (GS25 large temperature stores); and

1. Each image of the victim's photograph;

[Article 5, 6]

1. In the first protocol of the trial, statements made by the defendant to the effect that there exists a fact between the victim and one another, together with the victim's one another, and that the defendant accused for the larceny's criminal facts;

1. Statement of the witness ○○ in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Police investigation report, investigation report (on-site guidance and photograph of the case), investigation report (referring to a photo of the 200 master body), investigation report (subject matter reported to police of the 200 master body), investigation report (the details reported to police of the 200 master body), investigation report (the details of the 200 master body), investigation report (the recording file of police investigation) and investigation report (the structure of the 308 master body of

1. A statement that corresponds to the part and degree of each injury as indicated in the judgment, among a medical certificate and medical check prepared by a Do governor as far as he/she prepared Do governor;

1. To enter in and present the written complaint prepared by the defendant;

[판시 제7항] 1.2012고단1476, 2098(병합) 사건의 제3회 공판조서 중 증인＠＠의 진술기재 1. 경찰 수사보고(일반)의 기재

1. Entry of the receipt; and

[Article 8, 9]

1. Statement of the accused in the second protocol of trial;

1. Entry of the statement of the police statement on Class III in the protocol of statement;

1. 경찰 수사보고(일반)의 기재 1.의사CCC,000,이▦▦▦에대하여작성한각진단서중각판시상해의 부위 및 정도에 부합하는 내용의 기재

1. A copy of a license for a Class I emergency medical technician, and each description of a copy of medical records;

1. Each image of the victim's photograph;

[Paragraph 10]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made by the police officer on the OO;

1.가작성한▣▣에대한상해진단서중판시상해의부위및정도에부합하

entry of the content

1. On the spot, images of the accused, and victim photographs;

[Article 11, 12]

1. Statement of the accused in the fourth protocol of trial;

1. Entry of a traffic accident report by the police;

1. Each entry in the register of estimates, chassiss, mandatory insurance, and driver's licenses for motor vehicles; and

1. All images of a photograph by cutting a dynamic image related to the accident;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement of Embezzlement), Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Articles 301 and 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Articles 60(1)1 and 12 of the Emergency Medical Service Act, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (the illegal use of a new card), Article 301 and Article 297(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 60(1)1 and Article 12 of the Emergency Medical Service Act, Article 152 subparag. 1, Article 46(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (the Insurance Act).

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes concerning rape and injury with the largest punishment, and punishment as imprisonment)

3. An order for disclosure;

Article 37 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

4. An order to notify;

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 41(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. Embezzlement and larceny

At the date specified in Paragraph (1) of the holding, the victim's DoD was placed in the events near the site of the case. However, the victim's 1 (i) and (ii) and (iii) are brought about the victim's 1 (i) and (ii) are to return back to the victim's her own. At that time, the victim's 1 (i) and (ii) are to return the wall to the defendant, or there is no fact that the defendant refused such request. There is no fact that the victim's 1) and (iii)

(b) The point of rape, injury and incompetence;

Although there was a fact that the victim was easy to sleep at the date stated in Paragraph 5 of the holding, and entered the telecom with the victim, there was no rape by assaulting or threatening the victim, and rather, the victim was stolen money and valuables from the victim, so it did not file a false complaint.

C. Causing property damage

The date stated in paragraph (7) of the judgment does not constitute a third day of external walls.

라. 피해자 ▦▦▦에 대한 상해 및 응급의료에관한법률위반의 점

At the time of committing the crime of Nos. 8 and 9, the defendant was in a state of mental health and physical disability by drinking the 4-jun's disease.

E. An injury to the victim's OO

Although there is a fact that the head of the victim's OO is taken up and the face is taken out by drinking, there is no fact that the victim's name is divided and cut off.

2. Determination

A. As to embezzlement and larceny

1) Details of the statement of the persons concerned

A) Statement of OD

○○ Police First Instance: The statementer, under the influence of alcohol, she was frightened to the floor of the stratotopool cafeteria which is a third place. The defendant brought the wall while she was able to get the wall while she was able to hold the wall, and the defendant was able to keep the wall because she could lose the wall under the influence of alcohol", and the defendant was thought to have been returned to the statementer at the time of later calculation because she did not return it later, and the defendant was not able to receive the wall at the time of making a statement. Afterward, the defendant was frightened in the park and tried to get the statementer, and the defendant was able to see the eye of the defendant after being frightened, while leaving the place of the house.

A statementer asked that he/she has no time to carry alcohol in his/her usual place, and then asked that he/she has "whether he/she has a lock" by making a telephone to him/her thereafter, and asked him/her to answer that he/she has, so he/she tried to return to the defendant's wall while intending to go back to the defendant, and gets back to his/her mobile phone used by the person who made the statement, and went back to the scene, he/she left a cab that remains mixed at the scene, and the latter situation is not well thought. Since the phone of the defendant is viewed as the mobile phone of the defendant, the contact was not made.

○ 경찰 제2회 : 조마루 감자탕에서 술을 마실 때 지갑이 자주 주머니에서 빠졌는데 그때 피고인이 가지고 있는 것을 보았다. 그런데 어차피 피고인이 훔쳐갈 것도 아니고, 혼자 '내가 가지고 다니다가 잃어버리는 것보다는 네가 가지고 있는 것이 낫겠 다.'고 생각하고 피고인에게 아무 말 없이 있었으며, 밖에 나가서 받으려고 하였다. 휴대전화기는 술을 마시면서 탁자 위에 올려놓았던 것인데 가 집에 가자고 끌고 나온 후에 보니 진술인의 손에 휴대전화기가 있었다. 밖으로 나온 뒤 공원 근처에서 피고인에게 지갑을 달라고 했더니 피고인이 "내가 음료수 사다 바치고…...." 등등의 이야기를 하면서 지갑을 자신이 가지고 있겠다고 하여 계속해서 지갑을 달라고 하는데 주지 않았고, 그러는 사이 , 피고인과 함께 공원 쪽으로 이동하고 그곳에서 폭행을 당한 것이다. 폭행을 당한 뒤 가 집으로 가고 나서 피고인과 함께 있을 때 지갑 생각이 나서 휴대전화기로 소에게 전화를 걸어 "내 지갑이 안 보이는데 니가 00이에게 받았냐."고 물어보니 오는 피고인이 가지고 있다고 했다. 그랬더니 피고인이 "뭐, 000, 뭐라고 했어 ....…."라면서 진술인의 휴대전화기를 빼앗아 갔다. 그 이후 피고인이 어디로 갔는지는 모르고, 피가 거꾸로 올라오는 것 같아 토하고 난 뒤 택시를 타고 집에 갔다. 법정 : 당시 술을 많이 먹기는 했었는데 잠을 못 자서 피곤했던 것이지 술 때문에 상황 판단을 못할 정도로 취했던 것은 아니다. 증인이 지갑과 휴대전화기를 잘 떨어뜨려서 도 증인의 지갑을 가지고 있었고 피고인도 증인의 지갑을 가지고 있었다. 지갑을 ◇◇◇에게 맡겼던 것 같은데, 지갑이 자주 빠져서 누가 갖고 있는 신경을 안 썼다. 피고인에게 지갑을 돌려달라고 하니 피고인이 "내가 그 동안 음료수 사다. 바친 게 얼마인데, 안마를 보내준 게 얼마인데."라고 하면서 지갑을 돌려주지 않았다. ◇◇와 통화하여 "지갑이 지금 주머니에 없는데 지갑 좀 가져다줄 수 있겠냐."라고 이야기 하였더니 가 "아까 못 들었어. ○○이가 안 줬잖아."라고 이야기 하였고, 피고인에게 지갑을 돌려달라고 하자 피고인이 "○○이, 뭐라고 했어."라고 하며 다가왔고, 그것이 마지막 기억이다. 휴대전화기를 가져갔는지는 잘 기억이 나지 않는다.

B) A statement

○ 경찰 : 피고인, DDD과 함께 3차 장소인 조마루 감자탕에서 나왔는데 ① ①①이 술에 너무 취해 소지품도 챙기지 못하여 진술인과 피고인이 부축을 해서 밖으로 나왔다. ①①①을 식당 밖 테라스 앞에 앉게 하였는데, 피고인이 지나가는 남녀 일행에게 시비를 걸어 진술인과 ①①①이 피고인을 말렸다. 이후 피고인과 진술인이 ① 00을 부축하고 걸어가던 중 피고인이 진술인에게 "피곤할 텐데 먼저 가라. 내가 ① ①①을 챙기겠다."라면서 진술인이 가지고 있던 ①①①의 지갑을 달라고 하였다. 그래서 일단은 피고인에게 지갑을 주고 약 15m 떨어진 공원에 가게 된 것이다. 이후 피고인이 ①①①을 폭행하였고, 진술인이 싸움을 말리면서 피고인을 벤치에 앉게 하고 담배를 피우게 하고는 119에 신고하려고 하니까 피고인이 자신이 신고를 하겠다고 말을 하였다. 그래도 119에 전화를 하고 있는데 ①①①이 구급차를 안 타겠다고 하여 119 구급대원이 피해자가 원하지 않으면 출동할 수 없다고 하면서 전화를 끊었고, 이후 112에 신고하려고 하니까 ①①①이 "신고하지 말아라. 내 동생이니까. 쟤 또 걸리면 인생 막장이다."라고 하여 신고하지 않고 둘을 진정시키고 있다가 피고인이 가지고 있는 ①①①의 지갑을 달라고 하였다. 그런데 피고인에게 5, 6회에 걸쳐 요구하여도 피고인이 "내가 지금까지 쓴 돈이 얼마인데...... 못 준다."라고 말하였고, DM은 진술인에게 자신이 알아서 할 테니 집에 들어가라고 하여 자리를 떠서 집에 돌아왔다. 그런데 갑자기 ①①①에게 전화가 걸려와 "내 지갑 어디 있느냐."고 물어보아 피고인이 가지고 있다고 했더니, MDM이 큰 소리로 "OO아, 네가 내 지갑 가지고 있냐."고 물어보는 소리가 들렸고, 이후 피고인이 "00이? ○○이?"라고 말하는 소리, DDD이 전화기를 빼앗기는 소리가 들렸으며, 이후 통화가 되지 않았다.

○ Court: (1) The ① there was a fact that he has diminished the floor of the ground at the steering floor pots; (1) the cell phone operator changed to 10 to her custody; (2) the cell phone operator was put to DoVD as it is necessary to communicate with DoVD; and (3) during the main place, 1) the Defendant was not in a state where Doctrine to her custody and Doctrineed to her custody; and (4) the Defendant got the Defendant to her custody. (1) After that, (1) the witness was asked by phone to the witness where her is called to her, her witness was the Defendant, and DocM asked the Defendant “ ○○, Doctrine, and Doctrine are with her.” (3) the mobile phone operator called her cell phone to her custody, and her cell phone operator got off her cell phone. (2) The Defendant got off her cell phone.

C) Defendant’s statement

○ police: The wall and cellular phone of DoD are known to be entrusted to the plenary session at the head of Do government office, the second place of the Do government office. (1) In the third place, under the influence of Do government office, the Defendant was under the influence of Do government office, and the Defendant and Do government office kept Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office. (2) The Defendant and Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office. (3) The Defendant and Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office. (4) The Defendant and Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office with Do government office. (1) The Defendant and Do government office with Do government office.

0. Prosecution 0: The defendant does not have any fact that he did not change her lock. At the second place, the second place of the lawsuit was imprisoned to the (DM) while the lawsuit was combined. At the time of the reduction of the floor which is the third place, she considered that DD's cell phone equipment and wallet equipment on the table was in possession of the lawsuit. Then, the lawsuit was in possession of the lawsuit. ① at the time when the defendant and the defendant were sconed, ① 1's cell phone equipment and wallet equipment are stored in park sc on the park scon. ① 1? Whether the defendant was sconed with the wall, the detailed memory is not made about how she was forced to cut off the wall of MD. ② how she was sconed with the wall, and how she was sconed with the wall of MD. ① how she was sconed with the wall card, etc., but she did not know about 3's cell phone.

(ii) review;

A) As to embezzlement

As seen above, the defendant consistently stated in the investigation agency and this court that "(1) the defendant has no means to keep the defendant in custody," and "(1) the defendant has delivered the wall that he had been under command on behalf of the defendant, and then he did not return the wall to himself and the defendant although MOM demanded that he and the defendant return the wall," although he did not return it. ① After leaving the scene, contact with the defendant is whether he has been under command from ① and one is informed that he has the defendant." Meanwhile, the statement ① "(1) the defendant brought the wall to keep the defendant in custody in the front floor of the front floor, and the defendant refused to return the wall, and the defendant was called on behalf of the defendant, and there is no possibility for the defendant to return it to the defendant, but there is no possibility for the defendant to use the wall, and ① there is no possibility for the defendant to return it out of the credibility of the defendant's statement, and ② there is no possibility for the defendant to use it.

On the other hand, even if ① is not directly delivered to the defendant, as seen in the above ① ① as seen in the statement, ① ① temporarily accepted the situation in which the defendant is in custody after recognizing the situation in which the defendant is in custody of the wall, and so, the temporary consignment relationship between ① and the defendant was established implicitly, and the entrustment relationship between ① and the defendant was established. Such entrustment relationship is immediately terminated upon the request of the DO for the return, so long as the defendant refuses the return, it does not interfere with the establishment of embezzlement.

B) As to larceny

DoD, as seen earlier, stated that the Defendant got off his cell phone when the police asked the Defendant to check whether the Defendant had her cell phone or not, and the Defendant asked him to turn off his cell phone. However, this Court stated that the Defendant was her cell phone break back, and the Defendant was her memory or cell phone break back only when she was called to go back. However, (1) The police investigation into the Defendant was conducted 3 days after the instant case, but the witness was conducted 10 months after the date of the examination; (2) the witness statement was made 100 days after the time of the instant case; (3) the witness statement was not made her cell phone call or statement that the Defendant did not bring about memory; (4) the witness statement and the witness statement were not made her cell phone break out, and (5) the witness statement and the witness statement were not made her cell phone break out at the time of the instant case, and (1) the witness statement and the witness statement were found to be contradictory to the police witness statement, and (4) the witness statement and the witness statement were found to have been found to have been her face.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, this part of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.In relation to rape, injury, and infinite appeal, it is without merit

1) Details of the victim’s statement

In light of the victim's consistent statement at the investigative agency and this court, "the victim was aware of 201. 3. 1. 1. Domination of the victim's body and that it was hard for the victim to find out the victim's 1. 4. Domination of the victim's body and the victim's 2. Domination of the victim's body and the victim's 1. 4. Domination of the victim's name and 3. Domination of the victim's name and 4. Domination of the victim's name and 6. Domination of the victim's name and 4. Domination of the victim's name and 5. Domination of the victim's name and 6. Domination of the victim's name and 1. Domination of the victim's name and 1. Domination of the victim's name and 1. Domination of the victim's name and 3.

3) Sub-determination

As such, this part of the charges of rape, injury, and false accusation of this case are found guilty by the victim's statement, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.According to the witness AA's statement as to the damage and damage of property, "the defendant has broken down a lower part of the left-hand side of the cafeteria at the entrance of the restaurant, and the defendant has taken a string place in the shoulder hand," and there is no circumstance to reject the credibility of the above statement. Thus, the facts charged of the damage and damage of property of this case is found guilty by the above 100 statement.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

라. 피해자 ▦▦▦에 대한 상해 및 응급의료에관한법률위반의 점에 대하여 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인이 위 사건 당시 술에 취하여 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 한편, 피고인은 위 사건에 앞서 2012. 2. 12. 술을 마신 상태에서 피해자 ①①①에게 상해를 가하였다는 혐의로 경찰에서 조사를 받고 있는 상황에서 위 상해 및 응급의료에관한법률위반의 범행으로 나아가게 되었는바, 피고인은 술에 취하면 타인에게 공격적인 행동을 할 위험성이 있음을 충분히 예견하고도 스스로 술을 마시고 만취한 후 위 각 범행을 저지른 것으로 보이므로, 피고인이 심신미약 상태에 있음을 이유로 들어 그 책임을 면할 수는 없다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

E. As to the injury of the victim's OO, the victim's OO made a statement to the effect that "the defendant was able to unsatisfed by the OO because it was difficult for the defendant to easily conceal the OO by dividing the OO into a canter, and that again, the defendant lost his mind by the OOO. The defendant was satfeing the O. The defendant was satfeing the O. The defendant was satfe by walking the front door of the vehicle with the satfe. The defendant was satfeing the front door of the vehicle." (The evidence records No. 19932, No. 29 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2012). In addition, there were no circumstances to reject the credibility of the above statement at the time of the trial. In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement that the victim's O was unsatfeed, but he did not have any credibility after the trial.

Ultimately, the above victim's OO's statement can be acknowledged that the defendant divided the victim's interests into damages and cut off the victim's interests. Thus, the prior defendant's statement on a different premise is without merit. Reasons for sentencing are without merit.

[Scope of Punishment] The crime of rape injury, larceny, false accusation, each crime of bodily injury, fraud, and embezzlement in the judgment of five to forty-five years of imprisonment [Application of Sentencing]

[Determination of Penalty] Type 2 (General Rape) of a sex offense (in the case of a result of an injury), the person who is at least 13 years old;

[Scope of Recommendation] The crime of false accusation in the judgment of four to seven years (Basic Area)

[Special Person] The results of the serious damage

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (General Non-Dismissal) of Non- Criminal Act

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to four years of imprisonment (Aggravated Crime 2] Judgment

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 of thief (large thief for General Property)

[권고형의 범위] 징역 8월 ~ 2년(기본영역) [경합범죄 3, 4] 피해자 DDD, ▦▦▦에 대한 상해죄

[Determination of type] Class 1 (General Injury) of violent crimes (general Bodily Injury)

【Special Indecent Injury】

[권고형의 범위] 징역 6월 ~ 2년(가중영역) [경합범죄 5] 피해자 ▣▣▣에 대한 상해죄.

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (General Bodily Injury) of a violent crime (General Bodily Injury) [Extent of Recommendation] Imprisonment from April to one year and six months (Basic Area) [Attachment 6] embezzlement

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) of Embezzlement and Breach of Trust Act

[Special Mitigation Measures] Where the degree of violation of duties is minor

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months or less (the standard for handling multiple crimes) - Imprisonment of 5 years (the minimum period of punishment to be modified) to 9 years of imprisonment (the maximum period of punishment) (=7 years +4 years + 1/2 + X1/3). Since the Emergency Medical Service Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) are concurrent cases, the lower limit is based on the lower limit of the above sentence range (five years of imprisonment).

[Determination of Sentence] 8 years of imprisonment with prison labor imposed an injury on the victim's ○○ by assaulting and threateninging the victim's ○○○○ in the course of the rape, and the victim's ○○○ was in a situation in which the defendant did not file a complaint due to a sense of shame at the time of the damage, but the victim's ○○○ was likely to be punished, and the crime of rape, injury, and non-competence of the defendant who accused the victim's ○○ in a false fact is extremely poor. The victim's ○○ was faced with an extreme fear so that the defendant's crime was run away from the her mother's body to the her body to the her body to the degree that it can be cut off from the her body to the her body to the her body to the her body to the degree that the fear at the time was easily left after the crime, thereby causing mental pain up to the present day.

Nevertheless, the defendant is consistent with the defense that could not be understood even if he reached this court, and does not show the attitude of committing the crime of death or the crime against the victim, and does not endeavor to recover the damage.

In addition, even if the defendant committed the crime of injury and damage to property against other victims, it can be known that the violence tendency of the defendant reaches a serious level, and despite the fact that physical, mental or property damage suffered by the above victims is considerable, the defendant has not been making efforts to recover damage.

In 200, the Defendant was subject to juvenile protection disposition by rapeing employees of entertainment establishments, taking cash by force, etc., and even though he had been sentenced to three years of imprisonment due to robbery by taking money and valuables at convenience stores in 2003, despite the fact that he had been sentenced to three years of imprisonment due to robbery by force, the Defendant may not be subject to strict punishment for the Defendant.

In addition, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the instant case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Hong Jin-young

Judge Kim Gin-hun