(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.05.30 2012노4115 | 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) 서울고등법원 2013.05.30 2012노4115

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)등

Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the term "defendant" is against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the defendant's case (1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter "the defendant") committed an act that may be regarded as an indecent act against the victim's large father; (b) the defendant showed bad habits, such as the wall and false horses, and had sexual assault from the outside of the suspicion that the victim might not have sexual assault, etc.; and (c) there was no criminal intent of indecent act by force; and (d) the defendant committed an indecent act by force in the course of making a somewhat excessive and excessive indication of his or her sex by inserting his or her mother, the court below found the defendant guilty of the rape and quasi-rape among the facts charged in this case, since he or she believed only the statements of the victims without credibility and found the defendant guilty of all of the rape and quasi-rape.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (ten years of imprisonment, disclosure of information, and ten years of notification) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the judgment on the part of the Defendant’s case for which the attachment order was applied was based on mistake of facts, etc., the risk of the Defendant again committing a sexual crime is either low or little, and thus, the attachment order for a location tracking device ordered by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant was argued in the court below to the same effect as the reasons for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel". The judgment of the court below is justified in comparison with the records, and it does not seem that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, such as the defendant's assertion, and it does not appear that there was an error of mistake of facts. (In addition, the part of the case of the victims submitted at the court below

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2014.02.05 2013노420

-부산고등법원 2014.03.27 2013노687

-서울고등법원 2013.05.16 2013노232

-서울고등법원 2013.08.22 2013노1916

-대전고등법원 2013.05.08 2013노86