beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On April 10, 2012, the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) who violated the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) expressed their intent to participate in a participatory trial to the lower court, but the lower court did not accept it, and thus, the lower court’s judgment erred in violation of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials.
B. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Persons with Disabilities) despite the fact that the victim had been unaware of having been disabled and had been forced to have sexual intercourse with the victim, and that the victim did not have sexual intercourse with the victim, and that the body was seriously affected at the time, and that the victim did not have a physical condition that could rape because of the Ambama and the bones of the Ambama had been sexual intercourse with the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In relation to larceny, although the name of the lessee was entered in the lease agreement of 3402, the defendant stated in the indictment that "the house of the victim D" is written as the defendant, and the facts constituting the crime of 2.0 of the judgment below.
A. (1) The same statement is also argued to the effect that it is erroneous of facts. However, the requisite criminal facts related to the establishment of the larceny of this case constitute theft of the defendant's smartphones owned by the victim D and wallbook 1, and it does not affect the above criminal facts. Whether the defendant's house of anyone who stolen the above articles does not affect the above criminal facts. Whether the name of the lessee under the above house lease agreement and the actual lessee are consistent with the above criminal facts is irrelevant to the establishment of the larceny of this case. Thus, the victim D stated the above house as his house at the investigative agency and accordingly, D's house in the indictment and the criminal facts of the court below.