logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.10.15 2015도12029
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강간)등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The establishment of facts constituting the offense of the accused case shall reach the level of proof with no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s and the person against whom an attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), on the following grounds: (a) as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Minors under thirteen years of age) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Minors under thirteen years of age) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent act by blood relation).

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is without merit, which is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant as the grounds of appeal or not subject to the judgment by the court below ex officio.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument seeking a disposition against the defendant in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed.

arrow