Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;
3. Provided, That for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant, by committing similar rape against a female living together, sustained injury to the victim.
In view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by using violence, etc., without being aware of the history of punishment several times prior to the instant crime, without being able to do so, and the victim appears to have suffered a considerable physical or mental pain, the Defendant’s responsibility is heavy.
On the other hand, there are circumstances that the defendant can be considered as positive factors of sentencing as follows.
The degree of injury of the victim caused by the crime of this case is not obvious.
The Defendant, who had no record of being punished for a sexual crime before committing the instant crime, shows an attitude against his mistake. Based on such attitude, the Defendant sought a letter from the victim and expressed his intent that the victim does not want to be punished, and the Defendant again wanted to be punished in the trial.
In full view of such various circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc., and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (two and half years of imprisonment), particularly the fact that the Defendant living together expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished by disclosing his/her intent to use the Defendant and to maintain the relationship with the Defendant, and thus, it is unreasonable to view that the sentence of two years and six months of imprisonment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable compared to his/her liability.
Therefore, it is true.