beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
The defendant shall be 40 hours.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") committed an act that disregards the victim's hand, such as fluoring the victim's hand, etc., and assaulting the victim to cut off and inflict bodily injury. The victim misleads the victim that he/she would have attempted to commit the crime and stimuls of the victim, and stikes of the victim, such as raising the victim's stimuls by misunderstanding the victim that he/she would have attempted to commit the crime, but at the time, he/she did not aim to rape the victim.
In addition, the motive that the defendant first assaulted the victim is for the softening of the victim, and there is no fact that the victim inflicted an injury on the victim in the course of putting the victim's clothes thereafter, so the defendant cannot be viewed as the crime of rape injury, and the crime of bodily injury and the crime of indecent act by force and the crime of injury and the crime of attempted rape should be applied.
Nevertheless, the court below found the victim's unilateral statement that could not accurately memory the case as a result of breath and assault several times from the defendant, as evidence, guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, at the Seoul High Court on May 24, 2012, sentenced three years and six months to a suspended sentence to the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 1, 2012, and committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence, and thus, the Defendant cannot be subject to a repeated offense. However, the lower court deemed the instant crime as a repeated offense and sentenced the Defendant to a repeated offense, and sentenced the Defendant to a repeated offense. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a repeated offense, thereby affecting the conclusion
(2) A case where the Defendant was found to have attempted to rape the victim.