209No794 Rape Bodily Injury

209 Jeonno9 (Joint Attachment Orders)

A

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

No. 50

Public-Service Advocates B

Suwon District Court Busan District Court Decision 2009Gohap6, 2009Sang1 Decided March 27, 2009

(Consolidated) Judgment and Application for Compensation Order 2009 early 247

July 24, 2009

The appeal filed by the defendant and the person named for the attachment order shall be dismissed.

1. The defendant case;

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) did not commit the instant crime, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Determination

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

(A) Summary of the defendant's defense

After emergency arrest on December 13, 2008, on March 4, 2009, the Defendant vindicateed that there was no fact between the scene of the crime of this case or no memory until the third trial date of the court below on March 4, 2009. At the third trial date of the court below, the Defendant went into the instant church building to see the background of the fact by recognizing the facts between the toilets, which are the scene of the crime of this case, and only after the third trial date of the court below, there was no male who went into the instant church building to see the background thereof. As there was a toilet door, the Defendant opened the door from which he left, and the victim was seated, and the victim again fell. However, the Defendant did not cause the victim again. As such, the victim was left as an offender, and she went out of the toilet to go out of the toilet.

(B) Determination

(i) First, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below [in particular, the statement of the result of fingerprinting at the scene of the crime (342 pages of evidence) and the statement of genetic analysis (Evidence No. 367 pages of evidence)], the number of units of the defendant in the toilet door, the number of units from the entrance wall inside the crime scene of the crime of this case, the number of units from the entrance wall of the defendant, the number of fingerprints from the left side wall, the defendant's physicalization, and the gene type detected from the blood trace of both horses are consistent with the victim's gene type.

(ii) 다음으로, 피해자의 진술의 신빙성에 관하여 보건대, ① 피해자는 경찰에서 피고인의 사진을 포함한 9장의 사진을 배열하여 실시한 범인식별 절차에서 8번에 배열된 피고인을 범인으로 지목한 점(중거기록 126면){피고인 및 변호인은, 피해자가 사진 배열에 의한 범인식별 절차에서 처음에는 범인이 잘 기억나지 않는다고 하였다가 2번과 8번 중 한 사람인 것 같다고 진술을 한 다음 좀 더 유심히 관찰한 뒤 피고인의 사진인 8번을 지목하는 과정을 거쳤는바, 이와 같이 피해자는 위 범인식별 절차에서 처음부터 피고인을 범인으로 지목하지 않았고, 나아가 8번으로 배열된 피고인의 사진은 피고인의 40대 사진으로 현재의 피고인의 모습과 동일하지 아니하여 위 범인식별 절차에서 의 피해자의 진술은 신빙성이 떨어진다고 주장하나, 범인식별 절차에서 제시된 사진들(증거기록 120면) 중 2번과 8번 사진의 영상은 얼굴의 윤곽, 모양, 전체적인 인상에 있어서 상당히 유사하여 위와 같은 피해자의 범인 지목과정이 자연스러워 보이고, 피고인의 위 사진의 영상은 이 법정에서 본 피고인의 모습과 얼굴의 전체적인 윤곽, 입술, 코, 눈, 눈썹 등에 있어서 동일시할 수 있을 정도로 식별성을 가진다고 할 것이므로 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다), (②) 더욱이 피해자는 당심 법정에서의 비디오 등 중계장치에 의한 증인신문에서 범인의 인상착의 등에 관하여 '범인은 머리숱이 많고, 얼굴은 둥글둥글하며, 피부색이 검고, 손이 검고 두꺼웠으며, 체격은 뚱뚱했다. 목소리가 두꺼 웠다'고 진술하였는데 피해자가 진술한 범인의 인상착의와 목소리가 이 법정에서 보고들은 피고인의 인상착의 및 목소리와 상당히 유사한 점, ③ 특히 피해자는 '피고인이 사건 당일 증인에게 교회에 다니느냐고 물어본 사람이다. 피고인이 화장실에서 증인에게 조용히 하라고 했고, 증인의 얼굴을 때렸으며, 증인의 목을 졸랐다. 사건 당일 화장실에서 한 사람만을 보았고 정신이 들었을 때 아무도 없었다'라고 비교적 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인을 이 사건 범행의 범인으로 지목한 피해자의 진술은 신빙성이 높다고 할 것이다 { 피고인 및 변호인은, 피해자가 경찰수사단계에서 아버지인 C에게 범인의 인상착의에 대하여 ‘40대 중후반 가량의 남자로, 흰색머리는 없으며, 검정색 머리에 안경은 쓰지 않았고, 검정색 구두 같은 신발을 신고 있었다'라고 진술하였으나, 피고인은 50대 중반이며, 평소 안경을 착용하고, 흰머리가 많으며, 흰색 운동화를 신고 있었으므로 피해자의 진술이 신빙성이 없다고 주장하나, 먼저 머리카락 색깔과 안경 착용 여부의 점에 관하여는, 2008. 12. 13.자 경찰 녹화 씨디에 대한 당심의 검증 결과에 의하면 그 당시 피고인의 머리카락 색깔이 검정색이었으며(이 법정에서는 피고인에게 상당히 흰 머리가 많아 보였으나 이는 머리염색이 탈색된 결과로 보여지고, 피고인 역시 위 씨디에 대한 당심의 검증절차에서 당시 자신의 모습을 확인한 이후에는 피고인의 머리카락 색깔이 염색을 하여 검정색이었던 점을 인정하고 있다), 피고인이 안경을 착용하고 있지 아니하였던 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 잠을 자고 있다가 긴급체포를 당하여 당시 안경을 착용하고 있지 않았다고 주장하나, 피고인이 이 법정에 출석할 때마다 착용한 안경은 '돋보기 안경인 점에 비추어 과연 피고인이 평소 일상생활을 할 때에도 안경을 착용하였는지에 대하여 상당한 의문이 든다) 이 인정되므로, 이 부분에 관한 피해자의 진술은 신빙성이 있고, 나아가 나머지 점에 관하여는, 나이 어린 피해자가 40대 내지 50대 남자의 나이를 판단하기는 쉽지 않을 것으로 보이는 점, 피해자는 경찰관에게 ‘상의는 검은색 계통 잠바를 입었고, 바지는 잘 모른다'고 진술하다가 아버지 C에게는 '바지는 검은색 계통에 검은색 구두 같은 신발을 신고 있었다'고 진술한 점에 비추어 피해자가 범인의 신발 부분에 대하여 정확히 기억하여 진술한 것으로 보기 어려운 점, 피해자가 달리 허위의 진술을 할 만한 이유를 찾아 볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어, 피해자의 진술에 일부 부정확한 부분이 있거나 제대로 기억하지 못하는 부분이 있다고 하더라도, 이를 이유로 곧바로 그 진술 전체에 신빙성이 없다고 단정하기는 어렵다}

(iii) If the defendant stated that he had been aware of his credibility in the crime of this case by opening the 3th anniversary of the Defendant’s statement, and that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact at the 1st day of the crime of this case, and that he had been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact on the 2nd day of the crime of this case on the 1st day of the crime of this case, and that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact that he had been found to have been aware of the fact.

In full view of the above circumstances, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below on this point is justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, since the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he raped the victim and inflicted bodily injury on the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding this point is without merit.

(2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The crime of this case was committed by the victim who was under eight years of age, who was sent to school, led the victim to the toilet of the neighboring church building, strokeed the victim, and was raped, and the crime was extremely poor in its nature. It is obvious that the victim and his family members suffered severe mental and physical pain in the course of growth, and the victim and his family members suffered serious pain and mental suffering in the course of growth, even if they were unable to live together, and they were able to suffer serious pain and mental suffering. Nevertheless, even though the defendant did not repent his mistake and did not want to take any measures to recover the victim's damage, considering the method and consequence of the crime of this case, the method and consequence of the crime of this case, the victim's age after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, family environment, and all of the records, it is not recognized that the defendant's punishment was too unfair, considering the following facts.

2. A request for attachment order;

In the event that a defendant filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, it is deemed that the defendant filed an appeal against an attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(6) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders. However, the defendant or his/her defense counsel did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case within the lawful period for submission of the grounds for appeal. In addition, even if examining the judgment below, it cannot be seen that the grounds for reversal should be examined ex officio, and the appeal against this part of the defendant is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is all without merit, and it is all dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders, and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge,

Judge Dong-ju

Judges Park Young-young