beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (Rape) defense counsel asserted on the ground of misunderstanding of the facts about rape and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the conduct of rape and unfair sentencing through the initial appellate brief, but the Defendant and the defense counsel withdrawn the allegation of misunderstanding of facts on the first trial date of the first trial.
The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not make it clear whether the defendant's sexual organ was inserted into the victim G's sexual organ, and there is a possibility that the defendant's sexual organ was inserted into the defendant's sexual organ only with the fact that the defendant's sexual organ was simply contacted with the victim's sexual organ.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of three years and six months, and the completion of the sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the language and text of Article 12 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 15156, Dec. 12, 2017; hereinafter the same), and the content, structure, and purport of the Act on Public Toilets, etc., even if a toilet installed inside a private commercial building is practically available for public use, it shall be interpreted that it is included in the “public toilet” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Public Toilets, etc., and in this case, a female toilet on the first floor of a building located in the NP when the Defendant intrudes into the instant case (hereinafter “the instant toilet”).
Nevertheless, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination: