Whether the subject of the crime under Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims thereof is also included in the attempted crime under Article 6 of the same Act.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims thereof, the subject of a crime under Article 6(1) of the same Act shall be limited to “a person who commits a crime under Article 6” and shall not be included in the attempted crime under Article 6(1) of the same Act.

Articles 6, 9(1), and 12 of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims Thereof

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh Hong-han

Busan High Court Decision 94No1406 delivered on December 14, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 and the defense counsel's ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below in comparison with records, it is just to maintain the judgment of the first instance which recognized the criminal facts of this case as it is, and there is no reason to conclude that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to conclude that there is an error of

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal by the defense counsel

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, at around 03:0 on May 29, 1994, the first instance court: (a) found the defendant, around 03:0, at the package of the Manpo-si, Mapo-si, 1994, 3 Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, 7, and her house of the married defendant; (b) 13 cm in length per day from the kitchen at around 04:55 on the same day; (c) found the victim (at 36 years old) her house to go to the church and caused the victim to rape; (d) applied the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Sexual Crimes to the victim, and (e) applied the Act on the Protection of the Victims, and (e) did not distinguish the victim's body from the victim's 5 knife and the victim's body.

However, Article 6 (1) of the Act provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 297 (Rape) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object or jointly with two or more persons shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than five years, and Article 12 of the Act provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than seven years. Article 9 (1) of the Act provides that "a person who commits a crime under Article 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than seven years if the person who commits a crime inflicts a bodily injury or injury on the person who commits a crime under Article 6 shall be punished by imprisonment." Article 9 (1) of the Act provides that "a person who commits a crime under Article 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than seven years." In addition, since penal provisions shall be clear and it is not permitted to interpret the same strictly and analogical interpretation, the subject of the crime under

Nevertheless, the court below applied Article 9 (1) of the Act to the so-called "the judgment of the defendant." Thus, the court below erred in the interpretation and application of Article 9 (1) of the Act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision has a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)