The case holding that the crime of bodily injury resulting from rape cannot be deemed to have resulted from the crime of bodily injury resulting from rape.

In the course of rape, the victim's her her mbbbbbbbs and her her bbbbbbbbs were found to have been drinking twice, but the victim her slicked only caused several pains on the side of the vehicle, which was the cause of the crime of rape, and did not have any room to go to the hospital because the victim did not have any appearance as well as any hole, it cannot be said that the victim was naturally accompanied by the assault, which is the requirement for the crime of rape, and that the result of the injury exceeding this is a new damage.

Article 301 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. 이 사건 공소사실의 요지는 피고인은 1986.2.6. 22:00경 안양시 안양3동 소재 샛별당구장에서 그날 저녁 피고인이 마신 술값을 받으러 온 피해자 공소외 1(36세)의 목에 쇠줄칼을 들이대면서 위협하여 피해자를 당구대 위에 눕게 한 다음 발로 피해자의 엉덩이와 허벅지를 2회 차고 주먹으로 그녀의 가슴을 2회 때려 항거불능하게 한 후 강제로 그녀의 치마와 팬티를 벗기고 1회 간음하여 강간하고 그로 인하여 그녀에게 약 2일간의 치료를 요하는 대퇴부 타박상을 입게 하였다는 것인바, 이에 대하여 피고인은 그가 단순히 쇠줄칼로 피해자를 위협하여 강간한 사실은 있으나 공소사실과 같이 피해자에 대한 일련의 폭력행위는 없었다는 것이고 따라서 이로 인한 상해의 결과도 있을 수 없으므로 강간죄가 아닌 형법 제301조 의 강간치상죄로 의률함은 부당하다는 것이다.

2. Therefore, if the defendant collected statements from the prosecutor's office, the victim's statements from the prosecutor's office, and the victim's investigative agencies and the court, and when the defendant rapes the victim, it can be acknowledged that the victim's her her her her her her her her her her her her her herb and bbbbbbbbbbbbs were drinking twice as stated in the facts charged. However, as to whether this result, the victim suffered from the victim's her her her her her her her her her her her her herb bbbbbbbs, such as the Defendant's her her her her her her herb herb herb herb her her herb her herb her her herb hers hers herb herb hers hers herb herb hers herb her

However, the victim testified that there was little pains on the upper part of the body of the victim without any address or hole in this court, but there was no room for the hospital, but there was no fact at the hospital. However, according to the records, the victim testified that there was a salvement for the heart to correct the salves. Meanwhile, the victim could look at the fact that the victim made a direct statement of damage to the police station for two days from February 7, 1986, the day following the day when the crime of this case was committed, and the victim did not submit a diagnosis because the victim's physical damage is insignificant. In light of this, each of the above statements made by the victim to the effect that the victim was able to take part in the second and second days following the salves and took part in the body of the victim, and that it was not necessary for the victim to take part in the salves for treatment, and it was not necessary that the victim's new result of the victim's use of the salves as well as that of the victim's physical damage did not occur.

3. Therefore, this case’s prosecution should be applied only to the crime of rape, which is an offense subject to victim’s complaint, due to lack of evidence as to the part and degree of the injury. According to the records on the victim’s withdrawal of complaint filed on February 14, 1986, the victim may recognize the fact of revocation of the complaint. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) and vice- terms of promotion