logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2021.02.05 2020노410
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of two years and six months) is unreasonable.

피고인의 변호인은 항소 이유서에서 ‘ 당초 공소사실대로 피고인이 잠을 자고 있던 피해자를 추행한 것이라면 준 강제 추행으로 의율되어야 하고 강제 추행은 무죄가 되어야 할 것이며, 피고인이 최초에 피해자의 가슴을 한 번 주무른 것은 기습 추행에 해당하여 강제 추행에 해당할 여지가 있으나 그 뒤 피해자의 귀를 핥고 다시 가슴을 주무른 행위는 강제 추행에 해당하지 않는다’ 는 취지의 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 주장을 하였다.

However, as examined below, the court changed the name of the crime to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (voluntary indecent act by blood) in the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and changed the facts charged accordingly. By permitting this by this court, the defendant's defense counsel's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal is not maintained.

Accordingly, the defendant's defense counsel explicitly withdraws the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the first instance, a prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Conduct by Relatives). Article 15 and Articles 5(3) and (2) of the applicable Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that “A prosecutor shall file an application for changes in the indictment to exchange the facts charged with the criminal facts, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.

arrow