logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.07.16 2015노272
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a normal state, thereby having committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment. (ii) The lower court’s allegation of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information, even though there are no special circumstances that the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed or notified.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, the fact that the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime may be acknowledged. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the situation at the time of committing the instant crime, the background leading up to the instant crime, the method and the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is not accepted.

B. Although the Defendant did not reach the level of mental and physical disability, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency and impulsely under the influence of alcohol, the degree of tangible power exercised by the Defendant is relatively little, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same type of crime, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, this case, while the defendant living in a de facto marital relationship for 13 years in office, sees the income received by C by working in a restaurant, and uses violence for three years to his or her or her or her or her or her or her father and children.

arrow