성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등간음)
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the purport that, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the effect that he would be forced to engage in sexual intercourse. The victim's statement also complies with the defendant B's statement, so the victim's statement is sufficiently reliable.
Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement on the grounds that each of the J and K (Ga name) statements merely witnessing some of the pages during the crime, the victim’s friendship with the mother of the victim her mother friends the fact that the victim was sexually related to the Defendants, thereby causing the victim to file a complaint, and the victim did not explicitly express his/her intent of punishment.
Defendant
B, not only the time of investigation by the prosecution but also in the court of original instance, led to the confession of all the crimes by repeatedly committed in the court of original instance, and the defendant A made a statement consistent with the facts charged. Thus, credibility may be recognized in light of the consistency and specification of the statement.
In addition, Defendant B exercised the force of force on the ground that Defendant B exercised the force of force on the part of the victim by taking advantage of the pressured state by Defendant A’s intimidation.
Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the credibility of each of the statements made by the victims and Defendant B, who correspond to the facts charged, is not proven, are erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the victim C (a) who is a disabled person of Grade A and B (Intelligent Index 62) with the Defendant; (b) the victim was aware of the name, the age of 25 from 5 to 6 before the age of 5; and (c) the victim was playing frequently from the summer of 2016.
The defendant is showing that the victim's intellectual disability is so far away from his or her own decentralization, and that he or she can blick off when he or she flicks.