logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.04.29 2014노838
강간상해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the court below acquitted the victim of rape injury on the ground that it did not constitute the injury of rape injury by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though such injury was inflicted on the victim, because the victim suffered bodily health conditions of the victim, such as the upper part of the bridge, which was over the wind of the defendant, and caused the deterioration of the victim's body and living function, and thus, such injury constitutes the injury of the crime of rape.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, along with the instant crime of unfair sentencing, exceeded the clothes of the victim who was locked by the victim of drinking alcohol, and attempted rape by taking advantage of the fact that the victim’s chest and fluor, etc. were fluoring the victim’s chest and fluor, and the victim resisted against the victim, and that the crime was extremely poor, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasible.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders, even though it is necessary to order the Defendant to disclose and notify his/her personal information.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant attempted to rape the victim after preventing the victim from resisting, as shown in the facts charged in the judgment below, and the victim completely refused to resist, obstructed escape, and inflicted injury on the victim on the part of the unclaimed bridge in the number of days of treatment days by going beyond the victim.

B. The lower court determined as follows, on the grounds delineated below, acquitted the Defendant on the ground that this part of the facts charged did not constitute evidence of crime.

(b).

arrow