logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.14 2019노384
강간미수
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant had the intention to rape the victim by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant had drawn up the victim, but did not attract the victim.

B. Even if the Defendant attempted to rape the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which did not recognize the condition of mental or physical disability even though the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to the injury of the victim.

C. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the court below issued an employment restriction order to the defendant for five years.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that there was an intentional rape on the part of the Defendant on the ground that “the victim’s statement that “the Defendant was sealed and intending to be placed on the bed against the bed against the bed against the bed against the bed against the bed against the bed against the bed against the victim,” that the victim did not have any motive to make a false statement, and that there was credibility in the statement, and that there was an intention to rape the victim on the ground that: (a) the Defendant was not limited to drawing the victim into the bed against the bed against the bed against,

In addition to the grounds of appeal by the lower court, the lower court’s decision that recognized the Defendant’s intention to rape is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles, in addition to the fact that the Defendant himself appears to have been placed on the beds by force (see the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant).

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court determined that the Defendant was from March 23, 2018, the transfer of the instant crime.

arrow