logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.06.12 2014노947
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인에대한준강간등)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for attachment order was sought, and only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, there is no benefit in appeal as to the part of the case of the attachment order against the defendant.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the legal fiction of appeal, is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201). Accordingly, the part regarding the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is not examined. Accordingly, the part regarding the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of this court’s trial.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The sentencing factors favorable to the defendant are as follows: (a) the defendant recognized a mistake as a whole; (b) there is no history of sexual assault against the defendant; and (c) the defendant was sentenced for six months at the Suwon District Court on August 23, 200 to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and (d) there was no previous conviction or more sentenced

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who sufficiently recognizes the victim's disability in the ordinary sense, despite the victim's explicit refusal intention, who is weak to exercise the victim's right to sexual self-determination at least three times in a short term or in the residence of the victim, and one of them is the sentencing factors unfavorable to the defendant that the defendant did not take necessary measures for recovery from damage until the victim's children are kept at the victim's age.

The above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct.

arrow