성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. As to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below, in light of the victim's consistent and specific statement as to the damage facts, and the defendant's false response as a result of the investigation of the detection device, etc., the victim's statement is deemed to have sufficient credibility, but the court below rejected the victim's statement and rendered a verdict not guilty of each of the facts charged in this part. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts
B. As to the dismissed portion of the judgment of the court below, in light of the fact that the victim received sexual education and later received sexual assault, and the defendant's repeated crime similar to a long time is difficult to specify the date and time of the crime by act, this part of the charges should be sufficiently specified, but the court below dismissed the prosecution against this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the applicable provisions of the indictment and the facts charged as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment below on the facts charged in this case cannot be maintained as it is.
However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the facts charged prior to the change of the prosecutor's prior to the change (whether credibility of the victim's statement is credibility or not) is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it is further to
On the other hand, the prosecutor of the judgment below is unspecified.