logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.05.09 2013고합893
강간
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 02:00 on October 2012, the Defendant discovered a diesel diesel where the Defendant’s house located at the head of the Defendant’s apartment 101-308, 101-dong 308, 201-dong, Busan, and the victim F (the 28-year-old age), who was a cleaning agent, followed the victim’s bank, and was in a string of use.

As a result, the Defendant displayed the diesel to the victim, stating that “I would like to see what she was fluent and written, and why I would be able to do so. I would be able to do so. I would be able to do so. I would be able to do so in fluen and even in fluencing.” In addition, I am off the victim’s bru and pande the victim who embly embling, and embling the victim, and emblad the victim, and emblad by inserting the blue into the part of the victim’s sound, and raped the victim by inserting the blue into the part of the victim.

2. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating that “The statement of facts charged shall specify the time, place, and method of a crime so that the facts can be specified,” is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial, at the same time, to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor as a public prosecutor shall not affect the validity of the prosecution where part of the elements for the aforementioned specific facts are indicated somewhat ambiguously, to the extent that it is possible to distinguish the aforementioned three specific elements from other facts, such as whether double prosecution or statute of limitations conflict with respect to the date and time, whether the place falls under territorial jurisdiction, whether the place falls under the scope of territorial jurisdiction, and whether the method falls under the constituent elements of the crime.

Even in that case, in light of the basic purpose of the facts charged, it should not seriously interfere with the defendant's right of defense.

arrow