logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.06.18 2015고합53
강간
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On August 26, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of three million won in the Daejeon Prison on January 20, 2013 by the Suwon District Court for a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers), etc., and completed the execution of the said sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant, as the awareness of the Seo-gu Section C B103, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (a) the victim E (here, 35 years of age) should, in order for the victim E to have his husband operate his business well on March 18, 2014; (b) caused the victim to find the Defendant; (c) accordingly, the victim sought D around 09:00 on March 27, 2014; and (d) the victim could find D from the Defendant, “E Bodos can die due to the death of E Bodos; and (d) there is a good condition in the future. In the case of E Bodo’s body, the victim E should request the victim to drive his body in order to drive his ear.”

Therefore, the Defendant, in the above D, should use the victim’s “hing away ear, ice, etc...” The Defendant should use the body string, and called “hinging clothes on the floor with panty and broke only worn with her body strings,” let the victim put the clothes on the floor without using the inner clothes and strings, put the locks down down immediately and promptly, in order with panty and brokes in order, she goes off the panty of the victim, and then the prosecutor tried to confiscate the confiscated of the seized Han lives (Evidence No. 1) on the part of the victim, but according to the record, the above seized Han lives cannot be deemed as having been provided or used as the same kind of crime of this case as that of this case, since the Defendant cannot be deemed as having provided the same objects as that of this case.

arrow