The case holding that the injured party's saves and the right saves are injury to the injured party in the crime of rape.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of violation of the rules of evidence, etc. that the defendant did not constitute an injury to the crime of injury resulting from rape in spite of the fact that the bodily condition of the victim was not changed due to such circumstance and that it did not interfere with the function of life, in case where the defendant did not constitute an injury to the crime of injury resulting from rape, even though he did not change the bodily condition of the victim due to such circumstance and did not result in an obstacle to the function of life.

Article 301 of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Do154 delivered on April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1107) Supreme Court Decision 92Do962 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2708), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1395 delivered on November 22, 1996 (Gong197, 136)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorneys Choi Dong-dong et al.

High Court Decision 97No90 delivered on June 3, 1997

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the High Military Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the facts charged that the defendant suffered bodily injury from the victim during the suppression of the victim's resistance in order to rape of the victim of this case, the court below dismissed the defendant's crime of attempted rape under Article 382 subparagraph 5 of the Military Court Act on the ground that the defendant's crime of this case constitutes the crime of attempted rape under Article 382 of the Military Court Act on the ground that the defendant's crime of this case constitutes the crime of attempted rape under Article 382 of the Military Court Act on the ground that the crime of this case was committed by assault of the defendant and the crime of attempted rape.

However, even after examining the records, there is no evidence to find the victim's injury details and degree as the court below's recognition. Rather, according to the statement in the medical certificate of injury written by the doctor's wrong decoration and the statement of the victim, the victim, after being issued three days after the crime, complaining of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the xbow and the right x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray of the x-ray.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the victim's wife does not constitute injury to rape under the above findings of fact is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to injury to the crime of bodily injury resulting from rape, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)