logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.27 2014노1737
성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In 2005, the Defendant, with the consent of the victim before the 2005, stated that the victim was sexually related with the victim within the vehicle of the victim of the O in Sungsung-si.

The victim reported as if he was forced to complete the sexual relationship between the defendant's wife (the victim's wife) and the defendant who caused a financial dispute, seven years before he was forced to complete the statement, so the victim's statement is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant committed indecent act by force at the lower court on the date and time of the crime, but argued that the statute of limitations has expired since the period of the crime was not 2008 but 2005. As to this, the lower court: (i) the victim was living in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si, a party who was divorced with her husband at the time of the death of the victim from March to April 2008; and (ii) the Jeju-si system was the victim’s parents, in addition to the parents of the victim, the victim was living in his second speech and the male and female.

On the day of the instant case, the victim decided to go to the father’s house located in the F, but at 3:4:00 p.m., at the time of the instant case, from the Defendant, “I am going to go to the water source,” the “I am to go to the father’s book,” who was sent to the Defendant at 6:7:0 p.m., and, at the time of 6:6:7:0 p.m., I am to go to the victim’s house in the vicinity of the victim’s house.

Do. Do.

arrow