Where a judgment on the number of crimes causing rape is made wrong;

In the case where several persons commit the same person in sequential rape, the number of crimes shall be determined by taking into account the time and place, the intention of the offender, the state of the victim, etc. The same place is the same and the time of the crime is fast, and the act of sexual intercourse continues to be committed by taking advantage of the victim’s failure to resist, the crime of rape or bodily injury resulting from rape is only established, and it does not constitute multiple crimes of rape or bodily injury from rape according to the recovery

Articles 301, 297, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act

65Do695 decided Sep. 28, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 395Da1247 decided Sep. 28, 1965) Supreme Court Decision 4292Ma573 decided Mar. 9, 1960 (Kakad 3954; Supreme Court Decision 13Na28 decided Sep. 1248, 197)

A

Gwangju District Court Decision 77 High Court Decision 99)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The ninety-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the defendant's grounds of appeal No. 1 is that the defendant committed a mistake that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although there was a fact by mutual agreement with B as the victim and it was not sexual intercourse by force, such as assault or threat, etc., but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's statements consistent with the part of the judgment of the court below and statements consistent with the judgment of the court below, and the part of the first instance court's statement and statements consistent with the judgment of the court below in the case of rape injury case No. 76Ra18 C and 1, which was investigated by a member of the party, are sufficient to recognize the facts of rape injury in the first instance court's original judgment, and considering all the evidence duly investigated and introduced by the court below, it is sufficient to find the facts of rape injury in the first instance court's original judgment (the original court did not submit the prosecutor's evidence, and the members who adopted the first part of the judgment of the court below's judgment of the court below without legitimate evidence examination.

Next, the summary of the grounds for appeal by a state appointed defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below is excessive and unreasonable. However, prior to its judgment, the judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) from February 14, 1976 to February 22:30, 1976, in collaboration with Nonindicted Party C and D with the Defendant’s instant crime; and (b) from around February 22:30, 1976 to around 06: (c) sexual intercourse with the victim B in a small order at the bottom of management management of Nonindicted Party E after having assaulted, threatened the victim B, forced to resist, and 4 days of sexual intercourse; and (d) the number of crimes committed in succession with the same person shall be determined by taking into account the time and place, the offender’s will, and the situation of the victim; (c) where the victim committed a sexual intercourse with the victim’s refusal to resist, the judgment of the court below is reversed by misapprehending the legal principles as to the injury or rape of the Defendant, and thus, it does not constitute a simple rape under the above provision of the Criminal Act.

The summary of facts and evidence against the defendant recognized as a party member is the same as that of the time of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

On the other hand, the court below's decision falls under Articles 301, 297, and 30 of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment and the defendant had a criminal record of special larceny in all the decisions that correspond to a repeated crime, according to the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act, Article 35 of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same year, the repeated crime according to the restriction under the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same Act of the same year of punishment, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years within the scope of the term of punishment reduced by discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)