beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① misunderstanding the part of the case by the Defendant: (a) attempted rape against the victim D and rape against the victim H (related to the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment below in the judgment of the court below) that the Defendant sent the victims to the victim a strokem, as stated in paragraph 1 of the crime in the judgment of the court below, by leaving the victim a strokem, which is a local mental medicine, in the manner described in the judgment of the court below; (b) however, the victim D only had the victim D wear the strokem and did not have the intent to rape; and (c) was sexually related and rape with the victim H.
② The Defendant was aware of the purchase of, and attempted to purchase, psychotropic drugs (related to the crime of paragraph (5) of the same Article as indicated in the lower judgment) and did not know that it constitutes narcotics, etc., which are psychotropic mental drugs.
③ Before September 20, 2016, the date indicated in paragraph (6) of the crime of the lower judgment, which is the date indicated in the judgment below, the victim’s rape against the victim T, the use of a psychotropic medicine, and the use of a camera, etc. (related to paragraph (6) of the crime of the lower judgment) had the victim take the Defendant’s exemption from the number contained in the stroke method, and had the victim take the stroke, while having sexual intercourse with the victim who was not mentally under the influence of alcohol on another day, while taking the stroke, the stroke. However, on September 20, 2016, the date of the crime of the instant case, there was no fact that on September 20, 2016, the victim had the victim take the exemption from the number contained in the stroke m, or lost the mind of drinking by having the victim take the stroke stroke.
In addition, since there was an internal relationship with the victim at the time, and there was a sexual relationship several times before and after the case, the defendant did not intend to rape the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, which erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The court below's decision is justified in light of various sentencing conditions of this case.