[1] The meaning of the intent to acquire stocks in larceny and whether the intent to obtain stocks in larceny is denied if the intent to obtain stocks in the future is to obtain stocks in larceny (negative)

[2] The degree of violence and intimidation in the crime of rape and the criteria for its determination

[3] In the crime of injury resulting from rape, whether the result of the injury includes the cases in which the act of sexual intercourse itself or the indecent act accompanied by rape was committed (affirmative)

[1] In the case of larceny, the expression "the intention of acquisition" refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person's goods, such as his own property, in accordance with the economic usage. Thus, if the defendant did not obtain the victim's consent at the time when he brought the victim's wall wall, it shall be deemed that the defendant had the intention to pay the victim later, even if he had the intention to pay the victim later.

[2] In the case of rape, violence or intimidation must be such a degree as to make it considerably difficult to resist the victim's resistance. Whether the violence or intimidation was significantly difficult to resist the victim's resistance should be determined by considering the following circumstances: (a) the content and degree of the assault and intimidation exercising tangible power; (b) the developments leading up to the exercise of force; (c) the relationship with the victim; and (d) the circumstances at the time of the crime.

[3] Even though rape does not constitute an attempted rape or the result of sexual intercourse, the crime of causing bodily injury to rape is established if the victim suffered bodily injury. In the crime of causing bodily injury to rape, not only the crime of assault used as a means of rape but also the crime of causing bodily injury to rape is included in the case where the crime of causing bodily injury to the victim was committed from the act of rape itself or where the act of rape was committed.

[1] Article 329 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 297 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 301 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 61Do179 delivered on June 28, 1961 (Gong9, 73) Supreme Court Decision 91Do3149 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2923), Supreme Court Decision 95Do3057 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1939) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Do1628 delivered on November 8, 198 (Gong198, 156), Supreme Court Decision 92Do259 delivered on April 14, 192 (Gong192, 1644) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Do2781 delivered on January 195 (Gong1995, 195)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 98No2304 delivered on January 13, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. 80 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the punishment for the second crime as stated in the original judgment.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the defendant).

1. As to larceny

The intent to acquire theft refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person's property, such as his own property, by excluding the right holder. In light of the evidence specified in the judgment of the court of first instance and the statement made by the defendant in the court of original instance cited by the court below, in light of the records, it can be recognized that the defendant had not obtained the consent of the victim at the time when the defendant brought about the wall of the victim containing cash, etc., so even if the defendant had an intention to make payment after the date, it shall be deemed that the defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the first instance which affirmed the evidence of a crime

2. As to the crime of causing rape

In the case of rape, violence or intimidation must be such a degree as to make it considerably difficult to resist the victim's resistance. Whether such violence or intimidation was significantly difficult to resist the victim's resistance should be determined by taking full account of all the circumstances, including the contents and degree of the assault and intimidation in question exercising tangible power, the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of the crime.

Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below in light of the records, it is recognized that the defendant had a desire to commit the crime of rape with the victim and that the victim was scambling with the body of the defendant, and the victim was scambling with the scambling with the scambling of the victim's body, and the victim was scambling at once. Considering all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the fact, the victim's age is over the victim's age, and the new wall without other people's access, the fact that the defendant used the scambling power to the extent that it is considerably difficult for the victim to resist the victim's resistance is sufficiently recognized. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, which affirmed the first instance that there was evidence of the crime of rape by the defendant, cannot be said to have

In addition, even though rape does not take place in an attempted rape or the result of sexual intercourse, the crime of causing rape is established if the victim sustained bodily injury. In the crime of causing rape, the result of bodily injury includes not only the case of assault used as a means of rape, but also the case of occurrence from the act of rape itself, or the case of occurrence from the act of rape. Thus, even if it is acknowledged that the defendant failed to succeed even though he/she attempted to add the sex organs, it does not hinder the establishment of the crime of causing rape inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the victim was suffering from the external side of the crime of causing rape that requires approximately two weeks medical treatment due to the act of rape or sexual intercourse committed by the defendant. We cannot accept all the arguments in the grounds of appeal as to this point.

3. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In the case of this case where imprisonment for less than 10 years is sentenced, the argument that there is a ground to recognize that the amount of punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 80 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the sentence stated in the disposition, and the decision shall be delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)