beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) there was no assault or intimidation in the process of attempting to sexual intercourse with the victim at the time, place, and place indicated in the facts charged; (b) however, there was no assault or intimidation, and (c) attempted to rape by assault or intimidation by the Defendant.
Even if a person voluntarily commits rape and attempted rape, it cannot be readily concluded that the injury of the victim was caused by the Defendant’s attempted rape, as stated in the facts charged that the injury of the victim was caused by the Defendant’s attempted rape. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the injury of the victim was caused by the Defendant’s attempted rape, and is ordinarily likely to occur during his daily life or by sexual intercourse through an agreement, and thus is minor enough to naturally cure, and thus, it does not constitute injury to the crime of rape. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts, attempted rape, and injury.
(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as above.
Examining records in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is legitimate, and the defendant's above assertion by the court below is not accepted.
B. As to the wrongful argument on sentencing, the crime of rape was committed in attempted crimes, the defendant deposited KRW 15 million for the victim until the original court and the trial of the party, and the defendant did not have the same record of punishment. However, in the case of this case where the defendant was in de facto marital relationship with his wife with his wife and the victim who is scheduled to be married immediately was in the south of his wife, but was killed while attempting to rape.