The meaning of “injury” in the crime of rape or bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion of drugs such as exemption from water / The case where a temporary death resulting in a state of the body or consciousness of the victim constitutes injury to the victim in the crime of rape or bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion and judgment criteria

In the crime of rape or bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion, it means that the completeness of the body of the victim is damaged, or that it interferes with the physiological function of the victim, that is, the state of health of the victim is changed in bad condition and the disability is caused to the function of life. The physiological function here includes not only physical function but also mental function.

Therefore, even in a case where a person temporarily causes the death or unknown state of the victim by administering a drug such as water exemption, if the victim’s health condition was changed due to the medication and the function of life was hindered, it constitutes a bodily injury in the crime of rape or bodily injury caused by indecent act by compulsion, even though there was no naturally and externally revealed wound. Furthermore, whether such injury was inflicted on the victim ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s age, gender, physical and mental condition, such as physical and mental condition, such as body and body degree, type and capacity of the drug, the method of medication, and the degree and degree of the physical and mental change, such as food disorder, memory, etc. caused by medication, and the physical and mental change, contents and degree of the influence of the medication, rather than by objectively and uniformly determined.

Articles 297, 298, 301 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3936 Decided May 29, 2008 Supreme Court Decision 201Do7928 Decided December 8, 2011

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Jong-hee

Daegu High Court Decision 2016No386 decided February 3, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the bodily injury resulting from rape and bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion

A. In the crime of rape, bodily injury, or bodily injury caused by indecent act by compulsion, means that the physical integrity of the victim is harmed, or that the victim’s health condition is inferior and that the victim’s life function is hindered, which includes not only physical function but also mental function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3936, May 29, 2008; 201Do7928, Dec. 8, 2011).

Therefore, even in a case where a person temporarily causes the death or unknown state of the victim by administering a drug such as water exemption, if the victim’s health condition was changed due to the medication and the function of life was hindered, it constitutes a bodily injury in the crime of rape or bodily injury caused by indecent act by compulsion, even though there was no naturally and externally revealed wound. Furthermore, whether such injury was inflicted on the victim ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s age, gender, physical and mental condition, such as physical and mental condition, such as body and body degree, type and capacity of the drug, the method of medication, and the degree and degree of the physical and mental change, such as food disorder, memory, etc. caused by medication, and the physical and mental change, contents and degree of the influence of the medication, rather than by objectively and uniformly determined.

B. The evidence duly admitted by the court below reveals the following facts.

(1) The Zpidem is a psychotropic drug that may cause harm to the human body when misused or abused it, and is designated as a psychotropic drug that may cause harm to the human body as it may cause side effects, such as hallucination, emulation aggravation, self-harmicide, loss of memory, etc.

(2) The victim (the 40-year-old) received a coffee from the Defendant, which combines the exemption of ingredients in the stroke-m, with a stroke-mm, and then lost the spirit immediately after about 4 hours. The exemption of the Defendant’s administered to the victim was the amount equivalent to 1.5 times to 2 times the recommended capacity for adults.

(3) The victim was unable to properly associate with the circumstances that occurred after that time, and even though he was scarcityd, he did not think or act as his own will, but was influenced immediately without doing so.

(4) The Defendant, throughout 13 times, committed rape or coercion against the victim after having the victim unable to resist.

(5) Although the victim’s recovery of awareness and did not undergo special treatment each time, it appears that the Defendant’s repeated medication and the crime of rape or indecent act by force was affected by stress.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the victim’s physiological function of memorying information or experience through the medication of the drug, the victim’s physical and mental condition, the type and capacity of exemption from use, the method of medication, and the degree of loss of memory caused by the victim’s food disorder or memory, etc., the victim is deemed to have suffered damage that may result in a change of the state of health or a loss of living function as a bad and considerably difficult to resist due to medication. Thus, this constitutes injury to the crime of rape or bodily injury caused by indecent act by compulsion. This does not change even if the victim had not recovered the awareness naturally at the time, or had not received any special treatment.

D. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that convicted all of the facts charged of rape and bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion is justifiable in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of rape and bodily injury resulting from indecent act by compulsion, contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have determined that each of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intentional violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., without exhaust all necessary deliberations,

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)