A. Whether a separate confinement is established independently where the act of confinement is the means to commit the crime of attempted rape, and whether the revocation of complaint against the crime of attempted rape also affects the crime of confinement.

(b) Whether a person, other than the operator who forced the said victim to take part in a crime of confinement, can be deemed as an accomplice in the crime of confinement, where the victim was forced to take part in the crime of rape;

A. The establishment of the crime of rape is not always accompanied by the necessary means, and thus, the act of confinement became a means to bring the case to a certain place to achieve the purpose of the crime of rape, and it cannot be deemed that the act of confinement does not constitute the crime of rape. As long as the above act of confinement constitutes a separate crime independently, it does not affect the crime of confinement even if the victim revoked the complaint of the crime of rape.

B. If the victim was forced to leave a motor vehicle by the defendant and operated a motor vehicle in a state that the victim could not get out of his/her vehicle without looking at the victim's request, the act of confinement, even though the operator was the mother of the defendant who is not the defendant, cannot be viewed as a joint processing of the crime by implied communication with the operator.

A. Articles 276 and 306 of the Criminal Act; Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 30 and 276 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do323 Delivered on April 26, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 84No649 delivered on May 29, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The theory that the act of detention in this case is absorption into the crime of attempted rape and the crime of attempted rape should be excluded from the crime of attempted rape. The establishment of the crime of attempted rape is not always accompanied by the necessary means. Thus, the act of confinement in this case becomes a means to bring the offender into a certain place to achieve the purpose of the crime of attempted rape, and it cannot be deemed that the act of confinement in this case constitutes a crime of attempted rape. As determined by the judgment of the court below, if the defendant is unable to put the victim into a vehicle by force and operates a motor vehicle in an uneasible state, thereby leading the victim to the location of the judgment, the act of confinement in this case constitutes an independent crime. Thus, even if the victim's complaint was revoked as a crime of attempted rape, it does not affect the above crime of attempted rape, and therefore, the court below's decision that recognized the crime of attempted rape in this case is just and there is no ground to oppose the dissenting opinion.

2. As recognized by the court below, if the victim forced the defendant to move to a motor vehicle and proceeded to a motor vehicle in a state where it is impossible to get the victim to move to a motor vehicle without looking at the victim's request, even if the operator was the defendant's relative who is not the defendant, the act of confinement does not mean that the two people implicitly contact with the defendant and jointly processed the crime, so the act of confinement does not affect the establishment of the crime. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)