beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In a case where the victim of this case of misunderstanding of facts did not receive treatment, it is extremely minor and so naturally able to cure the victim's daily life with the passage of the time when there is no difficulty in the victim's daily life, and thus, it cannot be seen that the physical integrity of the victim's body is damaged, the physical health condition of the victim is changed to a bad condition, or the part of the victim's living function is damaged. Thus, the court below recognized it as an injury of rape by misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, and eight hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable, and the Defendant voluntarily surrenders, and thus, should be considered as a mitigation factor.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the injury resulting from rape in the relevant legal principles is extremely minor and thus, if there is no need for treatment, and there is no obstacle in naturally healing and daily life, it does not constitute the injury of the injury resulting from rape. However, this is premised on the premise that there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance, or that it is the same degree as the injury that may normally occur in his/her sexual intercourse with that that that may occur during his/her daily life, even if there is no assault or intimidation that could suppress the victim's resistance, or that such an injury is the same as the injury that may normally occur in his/her sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement. Thus, the injury shall be deemed as being injured if the victim's health condition is changed to a bad condition and has a disability in his/her living function, not to be determined objectively and uniformly
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4606 Decided September 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1039 Decided May 26, 2005, etc.). Shell.