[1] In a case where a person carries a dangerous object, such as a deadly weapon, with the intent to use in committing an offense at the scene, or carries a dangerous object, whether it constitutes “Carrying” under Article 6(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims thereof, even though the victim did not recognize it or does not use it for actual crime

[2] Whether it is unlawful to refuse to reduce self-denunciation or to decide on the assertion of mitigation of self-denunciation (negative)

[1] In light of the purpose of Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of the Victims thereof and the purport of Article 6 (1) of the same Act, the term "a person who committed rape by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object" means a person who carries a deadly weapon under the intention to use in the crime at the scene of the crime, or carries a body, and does not include a case where he carries a deadly weapon under the intention to use in the crime. However, as long as he carries a dangerous object, such as a deadly weapon, or carries a body, under the intention to use in the crime at the scene of the crime, he does not require the victim to recognize the fact or actually use it for the crime.

[2] Even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the police, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment against the person who voluntarily surrenders to the police, and the court below cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court did not reduce the punishment or did not decide on the allegation of mitigation of the police officer.

[1] Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims thereof / [2] Article 52 of the Criminal Act, Article 323 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do353 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 870) Supreme Court Decision 90Do401 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1197) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1341 Delivered on June 14, 2002 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872 Delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1300)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 2004No304 delivered on March 17, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. 80 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. In light of the purpose of Article 6(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of the Victims thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the term "a person who commits rape by carrying a deadly weapon or any other dangerous object" means a person who carries a deadly weapon or carrying a body under the intent to use for committing the crime at the scene of the crime, and does not include a case in which the person carries a deadly weapon or carrying it in his body, regardless of the intention to use it at the scene of the crime. However, as long as the person carries a dangerous weapon or carrying a body with the intent to use it at the scene of the crime, it does not require the victim to recognize the fact or actually use it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do353, Apr. 10, 198; 90Do401, Apr. 24, 190; 201Do314, Jun. 14, 2002).

According to the records, the defendant, in order to rape the victim, entered the victim's house and knife with knife with a knife with a knife and a knife with a knife which were in the victim's kitchen in order to commit rape, died of sound and knife the victim's knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a kn

The ground of appeal pointing out an error in the lower judgment on the premise of objection is without merit.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to mental and physical disorder on the ground that the defendant had drinking prior to the crime of this case, but caused that the defendant did not have or had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. Even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment against the self-denunciation, and the court below cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court below failed to reduce the number of self-denunciation or did not render a judgment on the allegation of mitigation of self-denunciation (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872 Decided April 24, 2001).

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)