아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간등치상)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.
In light of the following circumstances, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① A victim’s statement at the court of the court of the court below to the effect that the victim’s attempt to insert his or her sexual organ is very little, is not consistent when compared with each of the statements in an investigative agency of the victim, and it is difficult to make a statement itself non-specific and reliable.
② Although there was a fact that the Defendant got the victim to the telecom, this was intended to protect the victim under the influence of alcohol, and there was no sexual intercourse with the victim.
Therefore, it can not be said that the sexual intercourse suffered by the victim was caused by the sexual intercourse with the defendant.
③ Although the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time, there was a fact that the victim had specifically talked about the Defendant’s mind, family relations, school life, etc. by restoring gold after entering the her conference. As such, the victim was in a state of mental and physical loss or resistance.
shall not be deemed to exist.
④ At the time of the instant case, the victim himself/herself was the victim himself/herself at the college of education at the Seoul National University, and the external appearance of the victim was not a child or juvenile. The Defendant did not recognize that the victim was a child or juvenile at the time of the instant case.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
If the statements of the victim, including the victim, are generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, whether the victim's statement in determining the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles is reliable or not, there is no separate evidence to deem that there is no credibility from an objective point of view.