The case holding that the injury resulting from rape does not constitute the injury of rape only on the basis of the upper state in need of medical treatment for about seven days with a scarcity and scarfly skin transfusion, scarcity, and pain;

The case holding that the crime of rape cannot be committed because it is hard to view that the completeness of the body has been damaged, the health condition of the body has been damaged, or the health condition has been changed due to the fact that there is no difficulty in the daily life of the victim even though the victim was about seven days in the process of rape, and there was a wound in need of medical treatment due to the minor, scarcity and scarcity-scarfing, scarfing, and pain in the process, but scarfing the body of the victim without being treated.

Article 301 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do2042 Decided July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1020) 87Do1880 Decided October 26, 1987 (Gong1987,183) 88Do831 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989,375)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Yu Ho-seok

Busan High Court Decision 93No1704 delivered on April 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant attempted to rape the victim by taking full account of the evidence at the time, and there was an injury requiring medical treatment for about seven days in the process of the defendant's scambling and scaminginging, and pain. However, even if the defendant did not receive medical treatment, the contents of the wound and scaming are sufficient enough to lead a daily life without any interference and naturally cured upon the passage of the time, and on the day of the crime, the victim did not want the defendant's punishment, but the victim went to a hospital to receive accurate diagnosis at the request of the police officer, but the victim went back to the wind box to refuse medical treatment, and the victim was issued a written diagnosis of injury to the defendant, and the victim did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the degree and condition of the above and the records of the crime, or in light of the legal principles as seen above, the victim's injury or injury to the victim's body cannot be seen as being in violation of the rules of evidence.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)