(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.16 2016노4154 | 리걸엔진

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) 서울고등법원 2017.03.16 2016노4154

재물손괴등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was the victim's house, and the fact that the victim was faced with the victim's house, and the sexual relationship was established by the shouldering the victim, but there is no fact that the victim exercised the force of force to the extent that it would make it considerably difficult to resist the victim's resistance.

However, the defendant exercised the tangible power to the extent that it is considerably difficult to suppress or make the victim's resistance against the victim's will.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

2. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the defendant exercised the force to suppress or significantly difficult the victim's resistance against the victim's will.

The decision is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) The Defendant and the victim repeated several times once again, and the fact of restriction is recognized for a prolonged period of 6 to 7 years.

However, at the time of the crime of rape in this case, the Defendant and the victim had already been hedging under the agreement, and the Defendant, after being hedging with the victim, she is why the same year is dynasium to the victim.

“.” The fact that the Defendant sent the word “Fish match year” (Evidence No. 24,91 page of the evidence record) and the Defendant opened a door with the victim’s house even before the crime of rape of this case was committed, but the victim was not opening the door, but the victim was able to refuse to receive the Defendant’s phone call after the hedging with the Defendant (Evidence No. 25 page of the evidence record). In light of the fact that the victim maintained the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of the crime of rape of this case, or had the intent to have sexual intercourse with the Defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

2) The Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.02.12 2014노4026

-서울고등법원 2018.11.30 2018노2137

-대전고등법원 2014.04.11 2013노590

-부산고등법원 2016.04.27 2015노798

-서울고등법원 2014.10.17 2014노2056