성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자유사성행위)
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order; 1) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are only the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).
(2) On the date stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, only married to one’s own room, and there was no fact that the victim’s fingers by threatening the victim’s sexual intercourse. The victim’s mother stated on the date stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below. The victim’s mother stated on the direction of the mother. Since the victim’s memory was distorted or distorted at the time stated in the instant facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, and the victim’s mother stated on the date stated in the instant facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, although there was no credibility between the victim and the F, the court below found the Defendant guilty,
B. Prosecutor 1) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the ground that it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order is unjust, since the Defendant’s dismissal of the attachment order is recognized as a risk
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail under the title “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, the above judgment is justifiable and acceptable.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant on the grounds that the victim under 13 years of age, who had a mental disability living in the same Ne, reported and threatened his her her mar to drink by drinking, and the victim's sexual intercourse is not very good and the crime was not high, and thereby, the victim suffered a big mental pain and suffering.