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 two years.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the Supreme Court precedents that there is no room for the misunderstanding of facts to establish the crime in a case where the victim of the misunderstanding of facts has already passed a resolution on the crime, the mere fact that Defendant A made only the Defendant B, who had been reported in the ward on the day of the instant case, to be a quasi-rape. Defendant B stated, “I would like to have come to their own room with Defendant A’s her mother after drinking alcohol without disregarding the horses of Defendant A, and having been in a continuous drinking, because it was too difficult to do so.” In light of the fact that Defendant B stated, “I would have sexual intercourse with Defendant A, even without the words “I would have seen,” and Defendant B would not have passed a resolution on the crime of quasi-rape. Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (long-term two years and six months of imprisonment, short-term two years, and 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion
A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is not necessary to instigate a principal offender by specifying detailed matters such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime, and if the principal offender led to a resolution to commit a certain crime, the principal offender shall be established. In addition, in light of the above legal principles, it is not necessary for the principal offender to be the only condition for the principal offender to commit the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do542, May 14, 191). 2) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the first instance court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant A is charged with this part of the facts charged.