The meaning of "joint collaboration of more than two persons" under Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims, etc.

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims, Etc., "jointly consisting of two or more persons" shall be a subjective constituent element, which shall be shared by public invitation or communication with doctors as an objective constituent element, and in this case, the public invitation or communication with doctors shall not be required to be made explicitly in advance, but the intention of joint execution of an act that falls under the constituent element of cancer between accomplices at the scene of the crime should be common

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Cho Young-young et al.

The prosecution of this case against the Defendants is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants is as follows: at around 02:30 on April 13, 1997, the Defendants jointly do drinking together with Defendant 1 (the 16-year old age) and Defendant 1, who had been living in the room 311 located in Gunsan-si (dong name omitted) of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of Simsan-si (the building omitted). Defendant 1 did not intend to have sexual intercourse with the victim (the 16-year old age) and his her friendly non-party 1, and the above victim 1 her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her sher her her her her her her, and her her his her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

In order to establish a special rape under Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims, it is required that two or more persons jointly commit rape, and the above "joints of two or more persons" is a subjective element of crime, and there is a sharing of action as an objective element of communication or communication with doctors and an objective element of crime. In this case, there is no need to make advance advance communication or communication among accomplices, and there is no intention to jointly commit an act constituting the elements of crime between accomplices at the scene of crime.

However, consistently, from the police to the above time and place, Defendant 1 drinks with Defendant 2, the above victim, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, at the above time and place. Defendant 2 did not appear to have the above victim’s own desire, and Defendant 2 did not immediately speak, and stated that he left the toilet for about 10 minutes after rape with the victim’s own view to the above facts charged. Defendant 2 also entered the above toilet with the victim’s voice, and the victim’s new sexual intercourse with Defendant 1, who was sexual intercourse with the above victim, was not subject to prosecution or rape. Defendant 1 did not appear to have any other evidence to acknowledge that the victim’s sexual intercourse with Defendant 2 was rape in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, Defendant 1’s legal representative’s consent to rape in the above toilet, and thus, Defendant 2 did not appear to have any other way to prosecute the victim’s body and punishment. On the other hand, Defendant 1 did not appear to have any other problem.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)