성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of mistake of facts as to the fact that there was no fact that the defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act or rape, and that he did not photograph the victim's sexual act to cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (abrus, rape, etc.) and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (abrus, etc. of Sexual Crimes).
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts concerning violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the police from the police to the prosecution to the prosecution, and the victim tried to rape the victim’s residence, but the victim was about attempted to flee from the second floor house. However, if the statement was not actually occurred or the victim did not have experienced experience, it is specific and consistent to the extent that it is impossible to make the statement, and there is no special motive or circumstance to make the victim make the false statement for the purpose of punishing the defendant. In light of the circumstances, the victim’s above statement can be reliable; ② the victim was under the command of the defendant in the same shape as the South-North chrode of the defendant at the time when the police was sealed, and the content of the statement made by the defendant against panty did not coincide with the defendant at the time of rape.