(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.15 2017노733 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.15 2017노733

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)등

Text

The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

. The defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case by the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) was the victim I (the victim 15 years of age, hereinafter “victim”) to whom the attachment order was applied, after completion of the self-defense. Thus, there was no relation between the Defendant’s self-defense and the injury before the shouldering.

In addition, while the defendant avoided the victim and escaped from the door to the door, he did not open the door, and again tried to control the victim's attack or resistance, he did not contact the victim's chest with the victim's chest, and did not commit any other indecent act by force.

Even if such an act constitutes a forced indecent act, there is no relationship between the injury before the escape and the forced indecent act after the escape.

2) The lower court’s punishment (six years of imprisonment with prison labor) and the incidental disposition (five years of disclosure and notification) are too unreasonable.

3) The lower court’s argument that the Prosecutor’s unfair sentencing is unreasonable is too unhued and unreasonable.

(b) On the part of the case for which an attachment order is requested, a defendant has a habit of sexual crime;

Although it is difficult to see that the defendant's order to attach an electronic tracking device to the defendant for a period of 20 years, it is unreasonable to order the defendant to affix an electronic tracking device.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the injury in the crime of indecent act by compulsion of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be caused by a forced indecent act opportunity or an act closely related to time and place. On the other hand, it includes not only cases where the result of the injury occurred from the indecent act itself, or violence used as a means of forced indecent act, but also cases where the act resulting from forced indecent act is committed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2935, Jul. 12, 2007; 2007Do2935, Sept. 11, 2008).

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2016.04.22 2015노559

-부산고등법원 2016.04.07 2015노792

-서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016노3031

-대구고등법원 2018.05.17 2018노111

-서울고등법원 2017.09.15 2017노1525