logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2013.04.18 2013노49
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant, by intrusion upon the victim’s residence, tried to have sexual intercourse with the victim, the Defendant did not add the Defendant’s sexual organ to the victim’s sexual organ, and thus did not reach the maturity.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a prison term of four years, 40 hours’ sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years’ information disclosure) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant denied this part of the charges while asserting the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense by rendering a judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as follows.

The victim testified that "the victim made a consistent and specific statement from the investigative agency to this court." In particular, the victim made a testimony that the defendant inserted the sexual organ at the time of committing the crime and that since the victim inserted the sexual organ at the first time, it was possible to clearly distinguish the finger and the sexual organ since he inserted the sexual organ at the time of committing the crime, it appears that the defendant made a statement on the premise that the defendant inserted the sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ at the time of committing the crime, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant added the victim's sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ. Considering the records and records of the judgment of the court below, the victim cannot find any special reason to make a false statement (the defendant also stated that there is no special motive or reason to make a false statement in the court). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant, and there is no ground for the above argument.

(b).

arrow