207Ma57 Quasi-rape

KO (the early 20th male)

ΔΔΔ

Attorney Dog Dog (Law Firm Dog-ho)

January 11, 2008

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Details of the facts charged

On August 9, 2006, at around 00 :0 00 : the Defendant, upon the request of the victim 00 (or 28 years old) at the bus stops located in front of the bus stops located in 00 : 19: 00 : 200 : 00 ; 3.0 : (a) the Defendant, by recognizing that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant leased the Defendant’s mobile phone to the Defendant, the Defendant was unable to use the Defendant’s mobile phone at once for seven-day exemptions from the number of old pets so that he does not grow. At around 22:0 :0 : 22,00 :0 on the same day, the Defendant got the victim to commit rape; and (b) 3.

2. Defendant's assertion;

On the following grounds, the defendant requested the victim first in order to have sexual intercourse with the victim, and there is no fact of sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's state of refusal to resist.

① On August 19, 2006, around 00: around 00, the victim first met at the bus stops located in OO, before the bus stops located in O, and the victim first demanded that the mobile phone be lent to the defendant.

1 ② The Defendant sent a mobile phone to the victim anywhere, and then returned the mobile phone to the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s cell phone from a male who is string up after the locking (after being known later, the Defendant’s cell phone was called the Defendant’s cell phone with the victim and changed the victim.

③ Accordingly, the Defendant sent a cell phone to the victim, and then returned the cell phone to the Defendant in a monetary condition, and then the Defendant knew of whether or not he or she would drink. D. “The Defendant was called as a woman.”

④ The LO, “IO is shocked, as if they were potable. It is originally flabed. It is not only twice. In doing so, “IO”, even though the Defendant continued to take part in the victim, LO did not go against the victim, so IO would be able to escape the vehicle or bus.

⑤ At the time, the Defendant thought that the victim was under the influence of alcohol and went to the train station located at 00 cc on a taxi (hereinafter “the train station”) with the victim. The victim, first of all, went from the taxi to the Defendant’s mobile phone, again made telephone conversations with the Defendant’s mobile phone, and began to sound conversations with the Defendant’s mobile phone, and was on the day on which the call was finished.

6) Therefore, while the defendant gets the victim into a history, the victim sleeped "the victim was slick at the bottom of historical stairs on the part of the defendant." When the victim slicked, the victim slicked too far and continued to do so, and the defendant slicked into a historical slick field because the victim slicked, coming to a historical slick field.

7) The Defendant was seated in the redry field to the victim, “I am the strings before the strings. I am the strings before the strings. I am the victim did not think of the strings. After that, I am the victim am the strings of the Defendant’s bucks, I am the strings of the Defendant’s left hand, and I am off the Defendant’s strings due to inconvenience, and I am the Defendant’s strings of the Defendant’s strings. Then, I am off the Defendant’s strings, so I am the Defendant was able to get the victim to get off the Defendant’s lower part of the strings. However, I am the Defendant’s kid even without the Defendant’s refusal to do so.” The Defendant’s sexual intercourse was made with the victim and the victim actively.

③ During the period of sexual intercourse, the victim asked the victim to be the company member because the victim was living in the place of the victim. At this time, the victim was in preparation for the public official examination to ask the victim whether the defendant was a person who is to be in the place of the victim, whether the defendant should be promptly in the course of the examination of the public official, and the victim was punished by the victim, and the victim was forced to appear in the house of the victim. The defendant alone asked the victim whether the defendant was dead or not, and the victim was forced to appear in his own phone number, and the victim was informed of the telephone number of the date the defendant was easy, so the victim did not have the phone number, so the victim was called to go in the inn's house, and there was no telephone, so the defendant tried to go again, and whether the defendant was able to have been congested, whether the defendant was able to do so, and whether the victim did not talk with the victim, and whether the victim talked with it, and the victim talked with it and talked with it.

④ After the completion of a sex relationship, the Defendant: (a) sent a false book with the victim in history to the same time as the victim 11:0; and (b) moved the victim to the place of promise after entering the same time with the victim.

3. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

The crime of quasi-rape under the Criminal Act is established when a person has sexual intercourse with a female in a state of mental or physical disability or non-performance of ability to resist. For any reason, the crime of quasi-rape is established under the presumption of the possibility of criticism equivalent to that of sexual intercourse after having the female to resist for the reason of assault or intimidation. In this case, the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or non-performance of obligation, and whether the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the above condition is the issue.

(b) Fact of recognition;

First of all, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements made by the parties concerned such as the defendant, victims, and LOO as of the time before and after the occurrence of the instant case, the prescription of the doctor on August 7, 2006, the prescription details and receipts of the pharmacist on the same date, the request for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation for the appraisal of the said report (the evidence revealed in the overall records of the instant case, such as the summary of the legal science department, etc.).

① On August 7, 2006, before the instant case occurred, the victim purchased the said drugs at a pharmacy, after prescribing stroke stroke 14-day Lico 14-day, which is an exemption from water at the hospital (in this case, other drugs have been prescribed as 21-day as other drugs).

② 피해자는 이 사건 발생 당일인 2006. 8. 9. 17 : 30경 OO시에 있는 OO산업 앞에서 예전에 사귀다. 헤어진 LOO을 만나 다시 사귈 것을 요구하며 다시 사귀지 않는다면 수면제를 먹고 죽겠다며 수면제가 들어있다는 통을 보여주었으나, LOO은 죽든 말든 마음대로 하라며 다시 회사로 들어가 버렸다 .

③ After drinking the above drug on a quantity, the victim stated that he was exempted from 7-day water treatment. In addition, if the victim stated that he was exempted from 7-day water treatment, he was unable to resist, then the victim cannot be deemed to have been unable to resist in light of the following words, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim was exempted from 7-day water treatment. Thus, it cannot be concluded that he was unable to stop his cell phone and use it at the OO industry guard, and it was called a bus stop before the company, but the victim was not exempted from her water treatment. However, the victim did not think that she was exempted from her water treatment because she was discharged from her water treatment for 7-day water treatment.

④ The victim got out of the bus stops in front of the above 00 industry but did not get LO: 19:0 on the same day: (a) after getting out of the bus stops, the victim called LO to lend his mobile phone to the defendant who was waiting for bus at the bus stops, and then called LO to change his phone. In this case, the victim called LO to the defendant, who was waiting for bus at the bus stops, but the victim changed his phone. (b) At this time, the defendant was aware of whether the woman was drinking or not, "LO," but the LO called "IO was a shock show as drinking," and it was not a time to do so. (b) At this time, the victim asked the defendant to be able to get out of the bus or bus. (c) At the time when the defendant was called as the mobile phone, the victim asked the defendant to use the above phone phone when the victim got out of the phone, but it appears that O was made out of the mobile phone conversation of the defendant, but it appears that O was first made out of the mobile phone communications.

⑤ Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) boarded a taxi at the same time in order to turn the victim into the train; (b) around the time of arrival of the train, the victim changed his mobile phone again to the Defendant, and then changed the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant: (a) at the time of arrival of the train, the Defendant entered the train to the train and left the taxi; and (b) at around 19:30, around 30, around 19:37, around 19:37, at around 19:5:5: (c) the Defendant, who was called a cell phone of the Defendant, called “the Defendant is a passenger who was in the train, but does not have much consciousness for him; and (d) the Defendant sent it to Seoul by reporting to the police or 119, or by burning a train.

6. The victim began to string the call with LO, and the body of the victim is not well accumulated, and the defendant was frightened with the victim at the bottom of historical stairs located at a point of about 100 meters away from that place. At that place, the victim was her male-gu who died before the towing, so far as the victim was too deep. "I repeated the word "," and the defendant and the victim again moved to the fright field prior to the next calendar history.

7) The Defendant and the victim sent out the locking time in the Ptdry field. While the victim had sexual intercourses with the Defendant from the time he was sitting in the scam, the victim talked about whether he was a person to be in charge of scambling with the Defendant, i.e., he was in preparation for a public official examination on his personal affairs, i.e., he was in preparation for a public official examination on his personal affairs, i.e., he was in charge of mixing, and she was in a single scam. The victim talked about the Defendant that he was informed of the telephone number.

(4) After the termination of a sex relationship, the Defendant bought a bus ticket in Seoul 23:0 with the victim’s money, starting from around 23:0 to the victim’s money, and remains in the history of locking with the victim.

The victim left his house in Seoul, and the victim, alone, returned to his house in Seoul.

19 The following day of the instant case confirmed that the victim was able to drink for seven days of exemption from water exemption by phone to LO, and that LOO was able to kill for seven days of drinking, and that the victim was able to know about it.

① After that, LO made a statement that 50,000 won was delivered to the victim who demanded the agreement amount to be agreed upon (O has delivered 50,000,000 won as agreed amount, and the victim stated that O was willing to receive 50,000,000 won as agreed amount, and that O was willing to receive 50,000,000 won, the victim submitted the written complaint on the 29th of the same month.

C. The evidence judgment (1) is based on the evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, in such a case where only the perpetrator and the victim are in the situation where only two victims exist. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

As shown in the facts charged in this case, some statements by the police of the defendant, statements by victims and LO in this court and investigation agencies, diagnosis reports, STPP test reports, each prescription, the details of prescriptions and receipts, each prescription, and each response by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to the request for appraisal by each of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (Legal Science Monopoly, Medical Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopoly Monopolys, and the results of the false detection of Manopoly Manopo, STD test reports, and the response by the National Institute of Investigation and Research (

As long as the defendant has a sexual relationship with the victim itself, it cannot be admitted as evidence to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the remaining evidence should be examined except for this.

(2) First of all, we examine the part of the defendant's statement seeking the head of the ship, citing the fact that the defendant had a sexual intercourse with the victim in a state without a spirit of drinking water when examining the victim from the police (the second police questioning protocol against the defendant), and the exemption of water.

The second police interrogation protocol against the defendant is the whole purport of the defendant's second police interrogation protocol, which is somewhat abnormal in the conduct like the defendant's argument, and the victim's sexual intercourse was created as a male in order to first demand sexual intercourse. It does not seem to be the time for the victim to unilaterally engage in sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's state of refusing to resist. It is sufficient to say that the victim's sexual intercourse was demanded and the part seeking the prior sexual relation was against the victim's sexual relation without spreading it. Thus, it is difficult to accept this part of the defendant's statement as evidence to acknowledge guilty of the charge of this case.

(3) Next, the statements made by victims and LOO in this law and investigative agencies, each prescription, each prescription and receipt, response to the request for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (the summary of the legal science department) and non-speaking drugs (the report on attaching a speak component table) are considered as follows.

(1) Details of evidence.

The victim, from the investigative agency to the date of this court, he was drinking for seven days from the day after he got off the next day, and only he got off the phone to the LO. However, the victim got off the phone to whom she used to get off the phone at the stopping place, and the victim "whether or not she was her?" The male was her. When she was coming off the victim, her hand, her breast with the clothes of the victim, and her chest was unfortunate, the victim should her panty while she was broken off, and the victim was unfortunate, and the her panty of the victim was unfortunateed, and the victim was tight. The she was spawned in the grass field, so that she got off the victim's panty while leaving the taxi at the bus station, she was skeing the victim's last her bar, and she was skeing the victim's her body, and she was ske the victim's her body.

④ At the time of telephone conversations with the victim from an investigative agency to this court, the victim was able to inquire about the victim’s horses in telephone conversations at the time when the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant and the victim could not inquire about the victim’s horses in telephone conversations at the time of arrival of the train. The Defendant stated that the victim said that the victim was under the influence of alcohol.

According to each prescription and receipt, each prescription and receipt, response to the appraisal request by the National Scientific Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as a "stroke"), and the report attached to a stroke drug (stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke s).

(2) Judgment

According to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that until the victim arrives at the workplace of the defendant as the defendant himself/herself recognized, the victim did not properly speak as he/she was under the influence of alcohol, and did not properly over his/her body and did not have good distance.

However, as seen earlier, even if the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim for seven days from 0 to 19:0 on the day of the instant case, the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body, and even if the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body, the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body, and the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body, and the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body for seven days from 10 to 37, and the victim could not have been aware of the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's body. It appears that the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim could not have been known.

(4) Finally, I examine the results of the inspection of the last detection device.

The results of the false horses detection devices show that the content of the time of the meeting is "5. Mansan KTX Man's forced relations at night in the past August 1, 200," and "Isnsan KTX 8. Man's sexual intercourse with the victim's forced sexual intercourses? At this time, Isn't 11. Man's sexual intercourses without the consent above? At this time, Isn't have to respond to the three questions of the defendant's negative answers, but the results of the analysis showed false response.

However, there may be two questions that are negative for the above three questions: (a) where there is no other sex relationship; and (b) sexual relationship itself was generated; and (c) if the defendant made a reply in the electronic sense, it is natural that the defendant would have caused false reaction; and (d) it is insufficient to take the outcome of the examination as evidence to acknowledge guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Kang Dong-dong, Judge

Long-term leather

Kim Jong-young