2013Gohap156 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc. in Residence)

leA, Company Board

Park Jong-hee (Public Prosecution), Yellow-hee (Public Trial) and Jail (Public Trial)

Law Firm E.N., Attorneys Kang Won-won, Guju and (private ships)

Judicial Trainees Kim Tae (Korean Vessel)

September 9, 2013

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case

피고인은 창원시 B건물 피고인이 거주하는 원룸 101호 맞은편 102호 원룸에 피해자 임ㅇㅇ ( 21세, 여 ), 함C의 여성 2명이 거주한다는 사실을 알고, 평소 피해자들이 출입문 비밀번호를 누르는 모습을 눈여겨보아 그 비밀번호를 알게 되었다 .

On June 15, 2013: Around 30, the Defendant: (a) opened a studio 102 entrance and intruded into the studio with the victim and the above c studio in a studio with a view to rape of the victim while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant continued to be off all his clothes that he had been suffering, and the body of the victim who panty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty and spanty spanty spanty spans, and tried to have sexual intercourse with the victim who was divingd by the victim. However, what the victim spande spans spans spanss span, such as his breast and bucks, and the sbucks sbucking on the bridge, and discovered the defendant's spans spans spans spans spans, and spans spans spans spans spel, and reported to the police, etc., and led to an attempted crime without being achieved.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and attempted to rape the victim who was unable to resist, but attempted to do so.

2. Determination

In light of the facts charged, the defendant was found guilty on the premise that he did not have been able to capture the victim's house, and the defendant had been aware that he had been able to capture his house against his will. However, it would be contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law to punish him as a crime of intrusion by omission, and it would be contrary to the following facts: (1) The defendant was found that he did not have been able to capture the victim's house on the ground that he had been able to capture the victim's house; (2) the defendant did not have been able to capture the victim's house, and (3) the defendant did not have been able to capture the victim's house on the ground that he had been able to capture the victim's house, and (4) the defendant did not have been able to have been able to capture the victim's house on the ground that he had been able to capture the victim's house on the ground that he had never been able to capture the victim's house.

Therefore, Defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Offense of Rape, etc.) and only the crime of attempted quasi-rape can be established. The crime of attempted quasi-rape is the former Criminal Act (Crime of Attempted Quasi-rape).

18. Crimes falling under Articles 300 and 299 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574; hereinafter the same) and which can be prosecuted only upon a victim's complaint under Article 306 of the former Criminal Act. According to the written agreement on the preparation of the victim submitted to this court, the victim can recognize the defendant's complaint by withdrawing his/her intent to punish the defendant on June 28, 2013, after the indictment of this case. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the dismissal of the public prosecution of this case as to attempted quasi-rape, which is part of the facts charged of this case), so long as the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Jurors verdict and Sentencing Opinion

· Whether the applicant is guilty or not

- No crime: 7 persons;

Judges Lee Jae-hee

Judges Park Jong-do

Judges Kim Jong-Un

1) The victim has expressed his intent to withdraw the withdrawal of the complaint by attending this Court as a witness and making a statement that the victim would again be punished for the defendant.

Although the complaint is legally revoked, it is not effective even if the complaint expresses its intent to cancel the complaint (Supreme Court Decision 2009 delivered on September 24, 2009).

Do6779 et al. referenced in the judgment below