(a) The sex and the number of crimes of confinement where confinement is the means to commit rape;

B. Whether the act of burning the victim to the vehicle for the purpose of rape constitutes the commencement of the crime of confinement and the crime of rape (affirmative)

(c) Punishment for other crimes where withdrawal of a complaint has been made with respect to one of the crimes in a mutually competitive relationship;

A. Since confinement is not always a direct or necessary means to establish the crime of rape, confinement cannot be said to constitute a crime of rape on the ground that the act of rape became the means to commit the crime of attempted rape. In that case, the crime of confinement and the crime of attempted rape are realized by a single act, and are in a commercial concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

B. In a case where the defendant decided to rape by taking advantage of the victim’s situation where it is impossible for him to get out of the vehicle, caused the escape from the vehicle in the principal place by making it impossible to escape, and operated 50 kilometers, and forced rape before the inception and attempted rape, the above intimidation should be deemed to start the commission of the crime of confinement and start the commission of the crime of attempted rape at the same time.

C. The so-called commercial concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act refers to the punishment of one crime in the event that a single act constitutes several crimes, and the punishment of one of the most severe crimes is imposed, and the punishment of the most severe crimes is imposed, and the minor crime is not exempted from the punishment specified for the most serious crime. Thus, even though the serious crime of attempted rape in this case was revoked as an offense subject to victim's complaint, it does not affect the minor confinement (violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) even if the complaint was revoked as an offense subject to victim's complaint.

(a) Articles 40, 276, 297(b) of the Criminal Act; Articles 25, 276, and 297(c) of the Criminal Act; Articles 40 and 306 of the Act; Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 82No934 delivered on December 22, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant continued to commit an indecent act on July 11, 1980 and around 00:50 of the same month while continuing to operate the vehicle without having requested the victim (the victim (the victim (the victim of 17 years of age) to board the vehicle next to the driver's seat to enter the new principles of the budget-to-be in order to commit rape, while continuing to commit an indecent act on July 10, 1980, without giving up his intent to rape at around 01:0,00, while continuing to commit an act of rape, the defendant did not leave his will to rape, and continued to commit an act of rape on the part of the cargo train at around 01:0, without carrying the victim's intention to rape, and tried to rape in the way ahead of the front of the Man-gun Songdong-gun Hodong-gun Sckdong-gun, but the victim attempted to rape in the room, but it did not constitute a separate means of rape, and found the victim not guilty.

(2) Although the judgment of the court below is ambiguous, if the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the act of confinement in this case does not constitute a crime by absorbing the crime of attempted rape, it cannot be deemed that the act of confinement in this case was incorporated into an attempted rape and does not constitute an offense of rape. In light of the above facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant decided to rape by taking advantage of a state that the victim could not get out of the vehicle, and operated 50 kilometers by force from the vehicle in front to escape, and the above intimidation does not constitute a crime of attempted rape at the same time and at the same time constitutes a crime of attempted rape. Since the crime of attempted rape in this case does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, the court below's decision that the crime of attempted rape in this case does not constitute a crime of attempted rape in this case, and it does not constitute a so-called crime of attempted rape in this case and thus, it does not constitute a so-called crime of attempted rape in this case. The court below's decision that the crime of attempted rape in this case constitutes a crime of rape in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young