Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The “brain cerebral sensy that is missing” suffered by a victim C (hereinafter “victim”) is merely a symptoms that can naturally be cured without any particular treatment or living inconvenience, and thus does not constitute “injury” in the crime of injury resulting from rape.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (three years and six months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

C. The 10-year attachment order period set by the lower court is too prolonged and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the injury resulting from rape is extremely minor and thus, it does not constitute injury to the crime of injury resulting from rape in a natural process without any need for treatment. However, such argument is based on the premise that there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance, or that it is the same as an injury that may normally occur during his/her daily life even during his/her sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement. Thus, if an injury exceeding the degree is caused by such violence or intimidation, it shall be deemed that the injury would be caused. Whether the victim's health condition is modified as bad and has caused an impediment to his/her living function should be determined based on the victim's age, gender, physical and mental specific condition, rather than on a uniform basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1039, May 26, 2005). In full view of the detailed review of the facts presented by the court below and the evidence duly adopted by the court below, each of the following facts charged to the victim.