Defendant

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Manobalty

Attorney Choi Han-gn et al.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Gohap11, 2010 senior high-ranking2 (Joint) Decided July 2, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

Disclosure of information on the accused shall be made public through an information and communications network for five years.

The attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered to the person requested to attach an electronic device for six years.

1. The defendant case;

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed rape once on April 7, 2010, and did not commit rape on 30 occasions from February 17, 2010 to April 9, 2010, including the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the facts.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

B. Determination

(1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact

(A) Details of evidence (victim's statement) corresponding to the facts charged

이 사건 공소사실 전부에 부합하는 직접증거로는 피해자 공소외 1에 대한 각 경찰진술조서가 있는바, 피해자는 경찰 조사에서, ① 피고인의 최초범행인 2010. 2. 17. 범행에 대하여는 “2월 말일 밤 11시에 집에서 아빠가 나의 바지와 팬티를 벗긴 후 아빠의 성기를 내 성기에 삽입한 후 바로 화장실로 가셨고, 그로 인해 내 성기가 간지럽고 어떨때는 뭔가 이물질이 들어오는 것처럼 찢어지는 것 같은 느낌이 들었다. 그 다음날 아빠가 전화해서 비밀로 하라고 하고, 머리자르러 갔을 때는 차안에서 나에게 재밌냐고 그랬다. 머리 자른 날이 실제로는 2월 17일이라는 사실은 그 후에 엄마로부터 들어서 알았다”는 취지로 진술하고, ② 마지막 범행인 2010. 4. 9. 범행에 대하여는 “밤 10시 쯤 엄마가 자고 있을 때 등이 가려워서 아빠한테 긁어달라고 했는데 갑자기 아빠가 성기를 내 성기에 삽입하였다. 내가 이불을 잡고 아파하면서 몸이 흔들리는 걸 동생인 공소외 2가 보고 엄마를 깨워서 엄마가 알게 되었다”는 취지로 진술하고, ③ 그 외의 범행에 대하여 “2월말부터 4월말까지 아빠가 거의 매일 성기를 내 성기에 삽입하였다. 그 횟수는 수십번 정도이다”, “내가 3월 12일부터 17일까지 생리를 하였는데 그 기간 동안에는 아빠가 성기 삽입을 안했고, 그 직후 아빠가 장염에 걸려서 약 2주간 아팠을 때도 성기 삽입을 안했다”는 취지로 진술하고, ④ 구체적으로 “3월달에 엄마와 공소외 2가 비디오방에 씨디 빌리러 갔을 때 나도 따라가고 싶었으나 엄마가 집에 있으라 해서 너무나 무서웠다. 그 날도 아빠가 옷을 벗기고 성기를 내 성기에 삽입하였다”, “3월 셋째주인가 넷째주인가 밤 10시쯤 숙제마치고 아빠 다리를 주물러드렸는데 아빠가 불을 끄라고 한 후 성기를 내 성기에 삽입했다가 빼기를 반복하여 너무 아팠다”, “그 외에 엄마가 주방에 있는 탁자 위에서 공부하실 때 아빠가 막 일어나서 내 배 위에 올라가서 성기를 내 성기에 삽입한 후 막 흔들었다”는 취지로 진술하였다.

(B) Determination on the credibility of the victim's statement

① 피해자는 1998. 1. 17.생 여자 아동으로서 이 사건 범행 당시 초등학교 6학년에 재학 중이었으므로 자신이 과거에 겪은 일을 가감하거나 왜곡함이 없이 독립하여 진술할 수 있을 정도로 사물을 변별할 능력을 갖추고 있다고 보이는 점, ② 2009. 4. 9. 피고인의 범행을 목격한 피해자의 동생 공소외 2가 피해자의 어머니인 공소외 3에게 알려 경찰에 신고함으로써 2009. 4. 11. 경찰조사가 이루어졌으므로, 이 사건 각 범행시점과 피해자가 최초로 피해 진술을 한 시점이 비교적 근접하고 있어 피해자의 기억이 변형된 상태에서 진술이 이루어졌을 가능성이 희박한 점, ③ 사건 발생 후 피해자의 진술이 이루어지기까지의 과정에서 최초로 피해자의 피해사실을 청취한 보호자 등이나 수사관들이 사실이 아닌 정보를 주거나 반복적인 신문 등을 통하여 특정한 답변을 유도하는 등으로 아동의 기억에 변형을 가져올 여지가 있었다고 볼 아무런 정황이나 자료를 찾아보기 어렵고, 오히려 아동행동진술 분석가 양계령은 피해자의 경찰 진술내용에 대하여, 피해자가 경험한 사건에 대해 믿을 수 있는 진술을 하였고 진술에 있어서 외부의 영향을 적게 받아 암시에 대한 영향도 낮은 것으로 평가되었으므로, 전반적인 진술의 왜곡 가능성이 매우 낮고 진술의 신빙성은 높다고 분석한 점, ④ 피해자는 2009. 4. 11. 병원에서 진료를 받은 결과, 질 입구의 처녀막 조직이 조금 밖에 남아 있지 않았고, 정황상 오랜 기간 동안 삽입 성교 있었음을 배제할 수 없다는 진단을 받은 점, ⑤ 공소외 2도 “2009. 4. 9. 밤 11시경에 피해자가 이불을 꼭잡고 아프다고 인상을 쓰고 있었고 피고인이 그 뒤에 붙어서 이불을 덮고 있는 것을 목격하여 엄마 옆구리를 쳐서 엄마를 깨웠고, 엄마가 피해자의 팬티가 벗겨져 있는 것을 발견하였다”, “2월달에도 피고인이 피해자의 브래지어를 위로 올리고 피해자의 가슴을 만자고 엉덩이를 만지는 것을 보았다”는 취지로 진술하고, 공소외 3도 “2009. 4. 9. 공소외 2가 저를 깨워서 일어났는데 피해자가 끙끙 앓고 있는 것 같은 느낌이 들어 피해자를 보니 바지가 벗겨져 있었다”고 진술하여 피해자의 일부 범행에 대한 진술에 부합하는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 수사과정에서는 범행을 부인하였으나 원심 법정 제1회 공판기일에서 이 사건 각 범행을 모두 인정한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피해자의 진술에 신빙성이 매우 높다고 판단되므로( 대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2006도2520 판결 참조), 피고인이 이 사건 각 범행을 저질렀다고 넉넉히 인정된다. 따라서 피고인의 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

(2) On the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant was committed by elementary school students who are merely 12 years old to satisfy his or her sexual desire, and the victim who is a son and son and son and son have been suffered from sexual intercourse continuously over several times by taking advantage of the state of her ability to resist, which he or she was able to resist, and even in the situation where the defendant's small father and son are maintained, the crime is committed and the criminal situation is very poor, and the victim has no choice but to live in a deep mental state that is difficult to recover throughout his life due to the crime of this case, and the victim and the wife of the defendant want to have strong punishment against the defendant, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant from society for a long time.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant had no particular criminal record other than that sentenced once to a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act; (b) the Defendant supported his/her family while working in a restaurant prior to each of the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant appears to be contrary to the instant crime; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of committing a crime, consequences, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

(3) Ex officio determination on an order to disclose

The lower court did not issue an order to disclose personal information on the ground that the Defendant constitutes a subject matter of disclosure of personal information prescribed in the main sentence of Article 38(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, but did not issue an order to disclose personal information on the ground that the disclosure of personal information by the Defendant and the victim is likely to adversely affect the victim’s normal living in light of their personal relationship.

① However, Article 19(3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that “No person shall disclose to the public personal information, such as the address, name, age, school, occupation, appearance, etc. of victimized children or juveniles by which such children or juveniles may be identified, or pictures, etc., through an information and communications network.” Accordingly, when the Minister of Gender Equality and Family executes an order to disclose information, he/she prepares and discloses the summary of sexual crimes by excluding the part (such as the fact that the injured party is his/her father-child) specifying the facts constituting the offense of judgment. As such, there is no reason to see that the injured party merely is his/her father-child, and there is no reason to see that the injured party’s personal information disclosure of personal information of the accused and his/her family members, and fundamental rights to freedom of privacy, etc. However, the disclosure of personal information is continuously introduced for public interest purposes from the danger of sexual crimes against the present children or juveniles, and the disclosure of such information does not constitute a violation of the fundamental rights of children or juveniles against public interest.

Nevertheless, the court below did not issue an order for disclosure. Of the judgment below, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to a mistake in the application of the law ( even if the defendant added an order for disclosure in the trial of this case where only the defendant appealed, the sentence of the first instance court and the sentence of the first instance court, including the principal sentence, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfavorable change to the defendant).

2. Cases of attachment orders;

When the accused has lodged an appeal against the accused case, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed regarding the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, but no statement in the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds of appeal is written.

ex officio, the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach a location tracking device for five years by applying Article 9(1) and Article 2 Subparag. 2(a) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders with respect to the facts constituting the cause of the instant attachment order.

However, according to the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, in the case of committing a specific crime against a person under the age of 13, where the lower limit of the statutory penalty is imprisonment for a limited term of at least three years, the period of attachment of the electronic tracking device shall be between 6 and 20 years.

Nevertheless, the court below determined the period of attachment of an electronic tracking device against the defendant for five years. In the part of the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to erroneous application of the law in the part of the attachment order case (it is considered that only the defendant appealed in relation to the attachment order case, even if the attachment period of an electronic tracking device is extended in the trial of this case where only the defendant appealed, since the defendant's case and the attachment order case are already combined and sentenced to one judgment in the first instance court, it is necessary to determine whether to change disadvantage to the defendant by comparing the whole sentence of the first instance court sentenced in the combined trial and the sentence of the first instance court sentenced in a single judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6784, Nov. 11, 2004).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, since there are justifiable grounds for the appeal against the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case and the part concerning the attachment order among the judgment of the court below, and the grounds for ex officio reversal are reversed.

The facts of the crime recognized by this court and the facts constituting the cause of the attachment order and the summary of the evidence are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 9(1), 8-2(4) and 299 of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (before the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is enforced on April 15, 2010)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment of Sexual Crimes, Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, Protection of Victims, etc. (Death or Injury Resulting from Rape, etc.)]

1. An order for disclosure;

Article 38 (1) 1 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. Orders to attach an electronic tracking device;

Article 9(1)2 and (2) and Article 5(1)4 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

Where a conviction on the crime of this case becomes final and conclusive, the defendant is subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 33 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and thus, he/she is obligated to submit personal information to the competent agency pursuant to Article 34 of the same Act.

Judges Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)