logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.08.13 2013노541
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등살인)등
Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (1) misunderstanding of facts and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter “defendants”) have committed a smooth family life with L and two children, and there was no motive for preventing sexual crimes against the victims under 7 years of age who are not well aware, and there was no motive for preventing sexual crimes against them. At the time of the instant crime, there was only a fact that there was a job partner D, a text message, and a fact that there was a balance with his family, and there was no rape or murder with the victims.

The search record of the Defendant’s cell phone such as the “Kicin case” and “the statute of limitations for homicide case,” etc. was searched by the Defendant’s cell phone while L, who is the wife of the Defendant, was searched into the Defendant’s cell phone in the process of explaining that the Defendant was murdered in the vicinity of his house, and there was no fact of the Defendant’s direct search, and it is impossible to understand or search the above words

Rather, the instant crime is highly likely to be committed by a person, not by the Defendant, but by a person who was well aware of the victim, in light of the fact that there is no trace of resistance against the body of the victim, there is a possibility that the victim was out of the body of the victim, and that there is no property damage, and that there was a man who was only the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the reliable L's statements and found the defendant guilty. The court below erred by violating the rules of evidence and misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The Defendant, who was naturalization in Bangladesh, was faithfully living in support of his wife and two children, and the Defendant is normally living with his wife and couple, does not have any mental problem, and prevents a sex crime again.

arrow