강간
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant argued to the effect that he was not forced to make a sexual intercourse in the statement of grounds for appeal, but the defendant and his defense counsel appealed on the date of the first trial of the court of appeal, stating that “the defendant appealeds from the grounds for appeal on which the punishment was unfair, and the aforementioned grounds for mistake in facts in the statement of grounds for appeal differing from the sentencing,” and that some of the defendant's arguments to the purport that “the defendant partially misjudgments the facts will be taken into account in the calculation of sentencing,” is unreasonable.
2. There are circumstances that can be considered for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, the father of the defendant is in pulmonary cancer, and the mother is suffering from dementia.
On the other hand, however, the crime of this case brought about a state of mental disorder by drinking the victim's exemption from punishment, and has sexual intercourse with the victim. Nevertheless, the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim's consent during the investigation process.
There are many circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, including the fact that there is no criminal fact that the victim or the victim did not drink, that the victim had the victim undergo additional mental suffering by denying criminal facts, that the victim did not receive an application from the victim up to the trial, that the victim did not recover from the damage, and that the defendant had a record of punishment for the same kind of crime even before.
As above, in full view of various conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive leading to the instant crime, result, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., as well as the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines (two to five years of imprisonment), the lower court’s punishment is sufficiently recognized within the appropriate scope of punishment according to its responsibility.