(영문) 광주고등법원 2013.03.28 2012노602 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주고등법원 2013.03.28 2012노602

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)등

Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed the instant crime in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, had the ability to restrain the impulse to commit the crime due to mental disorders caused by alcohol use; and (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in a timely manner; and (c) the sentence

B. (1) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

(2) It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case, even if the risk of recidivism is recognized in light of the method, frequency, and rape of the crime of this case and the circumstances leading to the shooting of a camera, etc. without any rape.

2. Determination

A. (1) First, we examine whether the Defendant was in a state of undermining the ability to restrain the impulse to commit the instant crime due to mental disorders at the time of the instant crime.

In light of various circumstances such as the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime is deemed to have weak ability to restrain the impulse due to drinking, mental disorder, etc. at the time of the instant crime, and it seems that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, I examine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate.

The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant that: (a) the defendant opened the stud toilet room in which the victim is living; and (b) rapes the victim after intrusion into the stud toilet in which the victim is living; and (c) sexual intercourses with the victim several times on the same criminal opportunity; and (d) photographing the part of the victim's clothes after rapes.

On the other hand, the defendant's mistake.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2020.01.31 2019노2062

-광주고등법원 2013.08.22 2013노279

-서울고등법원 2016.10.14 2016노1888

-서울고등법원 2013.11.28 2013노3000

-대구고등법원 2015.07.30 2015노238