logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노2135
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

Reasons

1. On August 22, 2017, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty on the remainder of the facts charged. The Defendant appealed on the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below was separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime Nos. 25 and 27 are identical to Dongdaemun-gu Q and 105, and the above place is the domicile of the victim F No. 25, and the crime against the said victim was committed only once, and it is obvious that the place was mistakenly stated in the crime No. 26 and 27.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the above crimes Nos. 26, 27 as stated in the bill of indictment.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to the influence of perjury at the time of the instant crime.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours, confiscation) against an illegal defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination

A. We examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio prior to the judgment.

A prosecutor applied for the modification of an indictment to change the place of crime Nos. 26, 27 from Dongdaemun-gu Q and 105 to “non-explicied land” among the facts charged in the instant case. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

However, this part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged that the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed. As such, the conviction portion among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

(b).

arrow