(영문) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2020.04.09 2019노250

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) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2020.04.09 2019노250

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of five years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant’s case is erroneous) The Defendant opened a front door and divided conversations with the victim C even after entering the house, and there is no fact that the victim demanded the Defendant to leave, and thus, there is no violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (or rape).

B) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) even though the Defendant entered the toilet in order to see it rapidly and did not have an objective to satisfy the sexual desire, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of eight years) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic device for 20 years, even though it is impossible to readily conclude that the Defendant’s request for attachment order does not pose a risk to repeat sexual crimes

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case No. 1 of the lower court stated that the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Housing Rape) and the lower court acknowledged this part of the facts charged at the trial. However, the Defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, presented that “The Defendant, in the police, opened a door door and entered the house without the consent of the victim, entered the house.” In other words, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant, as he was deemed to have no one who would have opened the door door and come into the house, was considered to have no one who would have come into the house, and thereafter was thought to have been bad in the house of the victim,” and that the Defendant entered the house without the consent of the victim (Evidence 109, 110 pages).

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2019.02.13 2018고합281

-서울고등법원 2016.11.04 2016노2131

-울산지방법원 2013.02.15 2012고합417

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.01.11 2018고단2328

-대전지방법원 2020.10.22 2020고합243