beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (Defendant A) the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim F (or the age of 31) or self-defensive act in front of it.
However, as a result of the appraisal by the Daejeon Science Investigation Institute, the defendant's DNA punishment was not detected in the victim's panty and quality contents. Therefore, the victim's statement that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim is not reliable.
Defendant has sexual intercourse with a victim
Even if at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim was physically and mentally weak in light of the following: (a) the victim had dynasium 1 sick together with the victim’s dynasium 2000s, and (b) the victim made a relatively detailed statement about the circumstances of
subsection (b) of this section.
In addition, the victim's act does not constitute a deceptive scheme because there was no mistake, mistake, or a lot on the act of sexual intercourse itself, but only misleads the defendant as her husband.
According to this, the defendant is not guilty of sexual intercourse with a mentally and physically weak person.
B. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is so unfair that the sentencing of Defendant A is too unreasonable (Defendant A). The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too uneasy and unfair (the Prosecutor). The lower court’s judgment on February 2, 198 is too unfair (the Prosecutor).
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, whether or not the Defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim (i) the lower court found that there was a misunderstanding of the victim’s facts or a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine that the victim made a statement in order that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, and that the victim did not directly experience the situation at the time of the crime or the fear of his/her sexual intercourse with the victim, there was no motive to make a statement on the victim’s numerical sexual intercourse with the victim, and that there was a trace of body and body body of the Defendant’s DNA punishment on the part of the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim.