logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.12 2019노1000
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입유사강간)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the defendant's case (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) and the person against whom the attachment order was requested and the person against whom the probation order was requested (hereinafter "the defendant") are identical with the criminal who the victim stated and his physical characteristics, horses, and alcohol.

A person who had access to alley in the vicinity of the victim's residence before and after the time of the crime shall take care of the defendant, and there is no way to access the victim's residence other than the method of access to the said alley, and thus, there is no possibility that the third party can commit the crime or the defendant might have been in another place at the time of the

In addition, the victim tried the voice of the defendant who recorded and heard by the investigative agency, and tried to be the criminal.

It is difficult to understand the reasons why the defendant was led to confession in the first police investigation, but reversed it.

Even if there were some problems in the criminal identification procedure of this case, there are other circumstances to suspect the defendant as a criminal. Thus, the victim's statement by the defendant as a criminal offender is highly reliable, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim's statement, was sufficiently proven.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criminal identification procedure and finding the defendant not guilty.

B. It is improper for the court below to dismiss a prosecutor's request for an attachment order and a probation order against a defendant who is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the part of the defendant's case is the same circumstances as the judgment of the court below, i.e., ① the victim heard the voice of the defendant from the police through a letter-to-face inquiry, and identified the defendant as an offender; ② the victim's body as stated in the investigation agency and the court.

arrow