(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.11.21 2018노224

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.11.21 2018노224

아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간등)

Text

The judgment below

The part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

Defendant

In addition, regarding the person who requested the attachment order, 20 years shall be applied.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by the defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter "defendants") (three years of imprisonment, etc.") is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s appeal No. 1) The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor concerning the facts charged No. 4 through No. 7 of the List of Offenses among the facts charged in the instant case, sufficiently proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant raped the victim.

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the ground that it cannot be deemed difficult.

However, in full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order against the Defendant, even though the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of rape, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence, considering the fact that the victim is a minor, is likely to repeat the crime, and the need to attach an electronic device is recognized, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts was based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, i.e., (i) the victim’s studio returned to the Defendant’s studio (the victim’s statement, etc. on the background that the damaged person returned to the Defendant’s studio), and (ii) the victim’s studio was in the Defendant’s studio because there was no place for the victim to go back to the studio, and thus, the Defendant’s studio was deemed to have stayed depending on

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2016.04.21 2015노192

-부산고등법원 2016.05.02 2016노55

-부산고등법원 2016.05.12 2016노125

-부산고등법원 2017.05.18 2017전노26

-부산고등법원 2016.03.17 2015노790