logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.12.06 2013고합302
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)
Text

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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 23, 2013, at around 23:40, the Defendant intruded into the D Hospital 606 sick room in Silung-si, D Hospital 606, and committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s state of inability to resist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement of the F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Selection of Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Articles 319 (1) and 299 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime against the defendant and his defense counsel, Article 16(2) main sentence, (4), and (9) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act.

According to the records of this case, although the defendant was found to have a drinking condition at the time of committing the crime of this case, the evidence presented as evidence of guilt at the time of the crime of this case, and the circumstances, methods, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the defendant's statement in detail at the investigative agency, such as the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, are not deemed to have reached a state where the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion.

arrow