(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.5.16. 선고 2014노244 판결

4. It shall disclose and notify the information about the accused through the information and communications network for ten years (Provided, That the summary of the crime to be disclosed and notified shall be limited to the crime No. 1 in its holding).

The part of the case requesting attachment order)

Of the judgment below, the appeal filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor regarding the case for which the attachment order is requested shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as "defendant");

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although the victim attempted to commit suicide after committing a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, the victim only attempted to kill the victim by making it a purely, and did not intend to rape, and did not have the victim intended to have sexual intercourse.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the defendant was 19 years of age at the time of committing the crime, that the defendant voluntarily surrendered immediately after committing the crime, that the defendant was the first offender, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

In light of the cruel and seriousness of the instant crime and the scarcitys that could not be recovered by the bereaved family members due to the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unfeasible and unfair, so the Defendant should be sentenced to the death penalty.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. Ex officio determination

Of the evidence presented by the court below as evidence of guilt, I examine ex officio the evidence protocol (Evidence List Nos. 33), the test result (Evidence List Nos. 83, 132 and No. 135 attached thereto) of false oral detection devices (Evidence List Nos. 83, 132 and 135) of L

1) The part concerning the defendant's statement of crime in the police investigation protocol

The police preparation protocol, which contains the statement of the defendant, is not the same as the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant, and thus, it is accompanied by a photograph of the contents of the crime that the defendant led to the suspect, according to the scene of the crime, and a photograph of the process is recorded.

In that sense, such statements or photographs are inadmissible as long as the defendant denies all the contents of the statement in the courtroom and the situation of the existence of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do159, Mar. 13, 1998).

However, considering the circumstances in which the Defendant did not specifically recognize the authenticity and content of the establishment of the statement and reconfinite image as stated in the verification protocol at the lower court, and rather, the Defendant denies all rapes as stated in the verification protocol, the part on which the Defendant’s statement was stated in the said verification protocol and the refinite image according to the said statement are inadmissible.

(ii) the result of the inspection of a false horse detection device;

Based on the fact that the defendant consented to the "Notification of the Examination Results of the False Detection Detection Detection Detection Detection Finding" as evidence, the court below seems to have adopted the notification of the Examination Results of the said False Detection Detection Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding 3 as evidence with factual relations. However, in order to recognize the admissibility as evidence of the Examination Results of the False Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 20.

However, it is not clear whether "the notice of the results of the inspection of a false terminal detection device submitted by the prosecutor" satisfies the above various requirements. Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the credibility of the confession of the defendant, after adopting and examining the results of the examination of a false terminal detection device as evidence, that the result of the examination of a false terminal detection device was found to have committed the attempted rape and the crime of homicideing the defendant.

3) L’s legal statement in the original judgment (examiner’s statement)

Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, with respect to L's statement in the original trial which is an investigative police officer, if a statement at a preparatory hearing or during a trial of a person who is not the defendant (including a person who has investigated the defendant as a suspect before the institution of public prosecution or has been involved in such investigation) intends to contain a statement of the defendant, such statement may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that such statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and the prosecutor has the responsibility to actively prove such statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10396, Feb. 11, 2010).

However, on the record, it is difficult to grant admissibility of evidence to the investigator’s testimony on the premise that the testimony that the defendant led to the crime of rape in front of the witness who is the police officer in interrogation of the suspect was made under particularly reliable circumstances. However, on the premise that it is admissible as evidence of the investigator’s testimony, the court below erred by adopting it as evidence of guilt.

4) Sub-determination

As seen later, even if the above evidence is excluded, even if all facts charged are recognized by other duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's judgment that has deemed the lack of admissibility as part of the grounds for conviction cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if the judgment of the court below is reversed, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still included in the scope of the party members' trial.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

1) The judgment of the court below

In the lower court, the Defendant made an assertion to the same effect as otherwise alleged in facts in the grounds for appeal in the trial. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s confession, which was lawfully adopted and examined by the evidence (excluding the aforementioned verification protocol, the results of the detection of false statements, and L’s legal statement among the original evidences). ① Voluntary confession of the Defendant was recognized, and the statement of confession is consistent, specific and reasonable, ② The credibility of the Defendant’s confession was high; ③ The Defendant reversed the confession to the prosecution of this case, which was difficult for the victim to have purchased the Defendant’s suicide at the time of 7th public prosecutor’s office, without any specific doubt, for the purpose of committing a crime against his family members, and there was no fear that the victim would have attempted to commit suicide, including the Defendant’s testimony, and ④ the victim would not have made a false statement to the Defendant at the time of the 7th public prosecutor’s office.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Relevant legal principles

The mere reason why the confession, etc. at the prosecution is different from the statement in the court cannot be deemed to be the reason that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination of the credibility of the confession should be made based on the following factors: (a) whether the contents of the confession in itself have objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession in question; (c) what is the motive or reason of the confession; and (d) the reason why the confession does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and (e) whether there is a situation in which the confession would give a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do159, Mar. 13, 199

B) Specific review

As seen above, as seen in the above ex officio determination, the court below adopted evidence of evidence, false horse detection devices, and witness L’s testimony at the court below (hereinafter “the evidence excluded from the court below”) as evidence, and erred in finding the credibility of the Defendant’s confession as circumstantial evidence to recognize the Defendant’s attempted rape and attempted bodily abuse, but even if the evidence excluded from the above exempted evidence of the court below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of attempted rape and attempted bodily abuse on the ground of credibility in the confession made by the prosecution of this case, compared with the remaining evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below, and closely examined the above judgment of the court below, which found the Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s attempted rape and attempted bodily abuse on the ground that the confession of this case was reliable.

In addition, even according to the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (excluding the evidence excluded from the trial) and by the witness S party statement, the confession statement by the defendant is objectively rational, and there is no particular problem in the motive and reason for the confession, and there is no conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and the credibility of the confession of the defendant as to the attempted rape and the part of the dead body bath is maintained.

(1) As to the defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that there was a friendly relationship between the Defendant and the victim (whether there exists any part contrary to or contradictory to the confession)

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that there was a friendly relationship between the defendant and the victim, even though the defendant and the victim did not reach several times, and that S also stated that the victim's situation is equal to that of the victim in the last call with the defendant and the victim when introducing the defendant's friendly relationship. Thus, it can be presumed that there was a friendly relationship not revealed between the defendant and the victim.

However, since the time when the victim calls with S is before the defendant fully commits the crime of this case, it does not interfere with recognizing the guilty of this case that the victim's state was equal to that of the ordinary court around that time.

(1) In addition, in light of ① the fact that the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was a fratt and fratt with the victim, and there was no match appraisal” (Evidence No. 928 pages) for the victim, ② the Defendant and the victim at Ssick Sick witness testified in the trial court to the effect that the Defendant was fratt, frating, and fratt with the victim, and that the two were aware that she was not a fratt with the victim’s home, ③ the Defendant also fratt with the victim’s fratt with the victim’s home, and recognized that the victim was fratt with the victim’s fratt with the victim’s home, and ④ the victim appears to have had another male frat with the victim at the time of the instant case (Evidence No. 712 and 715 pages of the evidence record), etc., the argument that the Defendant and the victim became a rapidly fratt with the victim’s sexual behavior cannot be accepted.

(2) As to the defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that since G was aware that the Defendant and the victim had a sexual intercourse under the agreement, it cannot be deemed that the facts charged were proven without doubt.

(whether there is any part contrary to or contradictory to the confession)

In other words, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserts that, among G’s statements that were nearest at the scene at the time of the instant crime, G met N and entered the toilet, namely, “victim and Defendant 2 got into the toilet and had been very weakly fluence. As such, the victim and Defendant 2 thought or thought that sexual intercourse was committed, and that there was a little difference between the two relationships, and whether or not it was rape or rape.” (hereinafter referred to as “G 1 statement”), and that G did not have any clear distinction as to whether or not it was actually sexual intercourse.” (hereinafter referred to as “G 1 statement”), and that G used N and it was again a guest room at the time when G got into the cell phone, that is, it was not possible to prove that the victim was in the toilet (hereinafter referred to as “victim 2”) and that there was no reasonable proof that the Defendant and the victim were sexual intercourse.

(1) In light of the following circumstances as to the statement 1 of G, the defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse with the toilet prior to leaving G N, based on the statement 1 of G, cannot be accepted.

① When there is G himself, the Defendant only carried out a mobile phone game in the same shape as “gegetable in a toilet with the victim,” and if G abnormal sounds, it stated that the Defendant erred (Evidence No. 946 pages of evidence record).

G made a statement to the effect that it is contrary to the statement No. 1 of the above purport. "The defendant and the victim showed that they were dynamics that they left, that they were in a dynamic relationship, or that they were sexual intercourses." (Evidence No. 1118 pages) "The defendant and the victim did not seem to have a sexual intercourse in a toilet after entering the toilet, but the defendant had a sexual intercourse in a toilet with Handphone from the toilet at the time of the entry. However, in light of the fact that the defendant had a Handphone from the toilet at the time of the entry, the defendant did not have a Handphone at the time of leaving the toilet, and that there was no trace of scams that had been cut off from the clothes at the bar, there may be a misunderstanding of sound from another room (Evidence No. 1122 pages)."

② As to the G2’s statement, G made a statement as follows: “The victim was uneasy,” “(366 pages of the trial record),” “(67 pages of the evidence record) at the court of original instance and the investigative agency,” “(366 pages of the trial record) and “(67 pages of the evidence record) at the time of the request for assistance in the lower test.” In full view of the contents and contents of G’s statement as seen earlier, G’s statement and the fact that the Defendant and the victim were uneasy and uneasy, as seen earlier, was aware that the Defendant and the victim were sexual intercourse with the consent, and therefore, the defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that the charge cannot be seen as clear is not acceptable.

(3) Defendant’s statement (the objective rationality of the content of the confession itself) as to the process of purchase of knife

On the day of the instant case, the Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office that “When the victim has come to the Kax, I would like to threaten the victim, rape the victim, and to look after the death of the dead. The two mountain reasons for the Kaxa are very small.” The Defendant stated that the content of the statement is very specific, and that it is natural (in response, the Defendant purchased the Kaxa for the suicide after the 8th prosecutor’s office interrogation) as an explanation on the purchase of the Kaxa, including the industrial sector, on the other hand, that “the Defendant purchased the Kaxa for the suicide.” However, the Defendant did not provide for the reason for purchasing the Kaknba with a very large number of industrial knbs and the reason for purchasing 2 or Kaba knba knbs, not for 1 but for 1 others).

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, there is no error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant about attempted rape and attempted bodily abuse. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

3. Part on the appeal filed against an attachment order;

The court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 30 years and imposed a restriction on residential area, restriction on going out at a specific time, prohibition of access by the victim's bereaved family members, and completion of sexual assault treatment program on the following grounds: Provided, That if the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant on the case, the defendant and the prosecutor are deemed to have filed an appeal on the case for which a request to attach an electronic tracking device was filed pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, the defendant and the prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order, and even after examining the judgment of the court below, there is no reason to ex officio investigate

Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendant's case is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defendant and the prosecutor's appeal against the part concerning the request for attachment order is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.

[Discied Judgment] The defendant's case part

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows, except for the addition of "legal statement of witness L," "verification report", "report on the detection of false words", and "report on investigation (public medical treatment and custody relating to the suspect interview place and detection of false words)" in the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court below, and "1........... the statement of the first statement of the police officer G in the first statement of the police officer's preparation" is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 9(1), 15, and 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 159 of the Criminal Act, Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing death) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (No other punishment shall be imposed, since a person selects an imprisonment for life for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which has the largest punishment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. An order for disclosure;

Article 49 (1) (limited to Article 49 (1) (1)) 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. An order to notify;

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (limited to the first collection at the time of sale)

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they committed sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement, but did not commit any crime of attempted rape or homicide such as the statement in the facts charged, but the above argument is difficult to accept as seen in Article 2-b. of the above.

Reasons for sentencing

1) As to the defendant's assertion that the punishment sentenced by the court below is too heavy

As stated in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the following circumstances are as follows: (i) the Defendant was informed of the fact that he was 19 years of age and 20 years of age at the time of committing the instant crime, and there was no criminal record prior to committing the instant crime; (ii) the Defendant was fully aware of the crime causing the death of the victim and the crime destroying and abandoning the body of the Defendant; (iii) the Defendant was living in a foreign country at the time when he was living and went home, and was under conflict with his parents because he was unable to adapt to school life due to his career problems; and (iv) he was informed of the fact that he was flick with his old N, the Defendant was able to receive a unilateral separate notice from N because he was aware of the fact that he was flick with his old flive G around the instant case; and (v) the Defendant attempted suicide in 2012; and (v) there were some mental problems, such as self-help and dynamic evidence.

그러나 이 사건 범행은 피고인이 자신의 성적 욕망 충족을 위해 불과 2번 정도 만났을 뿐인 만 17세의 나이 어린 피해자를 강간하려다 미수에 그친 채 살해한 다음 그 사체를 간음하고, 이어서 사체를 손괴하고 유기한 것으로 인간의 존엄성 자체를 짓밟았다는 점에서 죄 자체가 지극히 무겁다. 피고인은 피해자가 모텔로 온 직후 범행에 필요한 커터칼을 2개 구입하는 등 강간범행과 사체유기에 이르기까지 전체 범행을 위해 계획적으로 범행 도구들을 준비하였고, 범행의 동기에 있어서 특별히 참작할 만한 사정이 없으며, 범행의 방법 또한 무자비하고 잔인무도할 뿐만 아니라 범행으로 인한 결과 역시 매우 중하다. 특히 피고인은 피해자를 살해한 이후에도 자신의 성적 욕망 충족을 위해 그 사체를 간음하는 방법으로 오욕하였고, 그 후 미리 준비한 커터칼로 피해자의 사체를 잘라 화장실 변기에 버렸으며, 그 과정에서 칼날이 부러지자 수회에 걸쳐 다시 칼날을 구입해 범행을 계속하는 등 무려 16시간에 걸쳐 집요하게 피해자의 사체를 손괴하고 이를 유기하였는바, 이와 같은 잔혹하고 엽기적인 행위는 예로부터 사체를 존중해 온 사회공동체의 사상과 정서를 현저히 훼손하는 중한 범죄이다. 피고인은 피해자를 살인한 후 사체의 일부를 도려내어 변기에 넣고 물을 내리는 행위를 반복하다가 화장실 변기가 막히자 호텔 관리인에게 배수구가 막힐 때 공기 압력을 이용해 이를 뚫어주는 속칭 '뚫어뻥을 빌려달라고 하는 등 시종일관 태연하고 침착한 태도를 유지하였고, 범행 도중 피냄새를 없애기 위해 수시로 환기를 시키고 사체에 세정제를 넣은 뜨거운 물을 붓는 등 치밀하게 사체손괴 등의 범행을 계속하면서 살인 등의 범행을 은폐하려 하였다. 피고인은 사체를 손괴하면서 자신의 지인인 G, N에게 범행 과정을 담은 문자메시지나 사체손괴 사진을 전송하고, 자신의 애플리케이션 카카오스토리 게시판에 "내겐 인간이라면 느낄 수 있는 감정이 이젠 메말라 없어졌다. 오늘 난 죄책감이란 감정을 느끼지 못했고 슬픔이란 감정 또한 느끼지 못했고 분노를 느끼지 못했고 아주 작은 미소만이 날 반겼다. 오늘 이 피비린내에 묻혀 잠들어야겠다."는 내용의 글을 게시하는 등 자신의 범행에 관한 별다른 죄책감을 느끼지 못하는 태도를 보이기도 하였다. 한편 피고인이 스스로 수사기관에 출석하여 피해자를 살해한 점 등을 인정하였다고는 하나, 이미 피해자 외조부의 신고를 받은 수사기관이 S에 대한 탐문조사를 통해 피고인이 피해자를 만난 마지막 사람이라는 점을 확인하고 피고인에게 피해자와 만난 사실을 추궁하기도 하는 등 수사의 범위가 좁혀진 후 자수한 것으로 이를 진정한 의미의 자수로 보기는 곤란하다(증기기록 10-11쪽).

Furthermore, due to the Defendant’s crime of this case, the victim aged 17 years old due to the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed in the Republic of Korea with no knowledge of its reason in the extreme fear, and took away from what he could not be compared, and the bereaved family members who suffered deep conditions that the victim could not recover through life because the victim was seriously killed and was dead and the body was taken away. Also, the bereaved family members who were the victim was tried to receive a death penalty against the Defendant in the original judgment and the trial. Nevertheless, the Defendant, without his mistake, denies part of the crime and did not make any effort to actively seek a letter to the victim’s bereaved family members, is also highly likely to be criticized.

Since the statutory penalty itself is death penalty or life imprisonment, the minimum sentence of the applicable punishment is imprisonment with prison labor for life, barring any special circumstance to recognize discretionary mitigation.

When comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and attitude of the instant crime, consequences, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., including all the above circumstances, the lower court’s punishment, which sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment, cannot be said to be excessive.

2) As to the prosecutor’s assertion that the defendant should be punished by death penalty

In view of the fact that the death penalty is a very limited punishment that is the very cold punishment that deprives human life itself of the original state and that it is an extremely exceptional punishment that can be presented by the dualistic judicial system of the country where the death penalty is to be granted, the sentence of death penalty shall be granted only when there is an objective circumstance that can be justified in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do924, Jun. 13, 2003).

In the instant case, the Defendant’s crime itself is a cruel crime in which the human dignity is set up, and there is no obvious reason to consider the motive for the crime, and the result of the crime is also very significant, and the victim’s bereaved family members want not receive a letter from the victim’s bereaved family members, and the victim’s bereaved family members want to impose the penalty of death.

However, considering the age of the defendant, the existence of criminal records, the possibility of edification of the defendant in the future, it does not lead to a clear conviction that there are objective circumstances that can be recognized by anyone who has any special circumstances that can justify the sentence of death penalty for the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held it reasonable to prevent re-offending of the defendant by completely isolationing the defendant from society, rather than the death penalty that deprives the defendant of his/her life itself of life, and to have the victim and his/her bereaved family members who have lost his/her valuable life, return to the victim who has lost his/her life and have the time to reflect his/her mistake in depth cannot be deemed unlawful.

3) Sub-determination

For the above reasons, the court below sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment as stated above.

Registration of Personal Information

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive on a sex offense (the first offense) subject to registration against the accused, the accused is a person subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the accused is obligated to submit personal information to the competent agency pursuant to Article 43 of

Judges

The judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judge Jin Order

Note tin

1) At the preparatory proceedings of the lower court, the Defendant consented to the protocol of verification as evidence, but withdrawn consent on the second trial before the examination of evidence was conducted. Although L, the originator, present in the lower court court and made a statement on the formation of a petition, the part of the statement to the effect that the Defendant led to the confession of rape and the second trial during the police verification protocol, and the part of the statement to the effect that the Defendant, inasmuch as the Defendant denies rape and the desire to die with the victim, was alleged to have committed sexual intercourse in the lower court

2) The name of the offense committed against the Defendant is “violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.)” or the victim was committed at the time of committing the offense, and thus disclosure and notification is made pursuant to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The maximum period of disclosure and notification is ten years in accordance with Article 49(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 7 of the Lapse

3) Sentencing Criteria

(a) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] homicide, Type 4 (Murder combined with Serious Crimes)

[Special Convicts] - Planned homicides, Destruction and Damage (Aggravated Elements, Contributors)

Self-denunciation (Mitigation factors, offender/other person)

【General Inbounds - Abandon (Abandon elements, acters)】

[Decision of the Recommendation Field] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 25 years, life imprisonment (Aggravated Field)

(b) The range of final balancing based on the comparison with the handling of multiple crimes and the applicable sentences: Life imprisonment (to take into account the following points, as the sentencing guidelines are not set, the lower limit of the recommended punishment for basic crimes is followed, and the applicable sentences are life imprisonment);

심급 사건

-수원지방법원 2013.12.27.선고 2013고합586

서울고등법원 2014.5.16.선고 2014노244

-대법원 2014.8.20.선고 2014도7260

참조조문

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제9조 제1항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제15조

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제42조 제1항

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제49조 제1항

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제49조 제2항