beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not appear to have been in common or in common as shown in the facts charged, and Defendant A did not know of his spouse by marriage with Defendant D.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, i.e., the Defendant B met Defendant A at the packing end in the Sincheon-dong, Sincheon-dong at the end of January 2012. From February 21, 2012 to June 7, 2012, Defendant B had sexual intercourse as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the lower judgment.
Since there are many places where “(with a sexual intercourse with Defendant A)” and “(with a sexual intercourse with Defendant A)”, they can be memory, and time is almost accurate and accurate.
“At the time of having sexual intercourses with only one month after March 27, 2012, it is because Defendant A was hospitalized at the hospital,” and “On February 2012, prior to sexual intercourse, Defendant A made a concrete statement that he had sexual intercourses with Defendant A with Defendant A, and Defendant A also made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the same effect as Defendant B’s each of the above statements. ② Defendant D made a statement at the police station that “The Defendant made a statement as above with the Defendant’s confirmation by the Defendant, as indicated in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below.” Defendant A made a statement on the premise that Defendant A had sexual intercourses between Defendant A and the telephone, and Defendant A made a statement on July 17, 2012 on the premise that it was difficult for the Defendants to file a criminal complaint against each of the instant Defendants, and Defendant A made a false statement on the premise that Defendant D’s obligation to pay back to the prosecution as seen above.”