성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(친족관계에의한강간)등
All the judgment below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 11 years.
For a period of 10 years, the information on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), the Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts was raped in the first year of high school (201), the part of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts constituting the previous crime cannot be found guilty.
(2) Considering that the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is divided into his mistake, the lower court’s imprisonment (14 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. (1) In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfilled and unreasonable.
(2) Comprehensively taking account of the degree of assessment of the Defendant’s risk of recidivism, the content of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime.
2. Determination
A. (1) The victim of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts clearly states the circumstances and time when the facts alleged in the Defendant’s judgment were stated at the time of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the crime, and comprehensively taking account of the victim’s attitude of statement expressed in the video CD No. 27-34 of the investigation record, it seems that the victim’s statement related thereto seems to be reliable.
(1) The defendant's assertion on July 11, 2013 is without merit, since the defendant's submission of the victim's written application on July 11, 2013 is justified. Therefore, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty is just.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion that unfair sentencing is unfavorable to the Defendant, including the fact that he did not have the obligation to protect and rear the Defendant as his father for a long period of time, and the victim appears to have undergone considerable mental shock and will not have experienced in the future. However, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is arguing about the time of the first crime, but it is replaced by the investigative agency.