logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.04.21 2015노744
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등상해)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the process, contents, etc. of the instant crime committed by Defendant 1 based on the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court erred by concluding that the instant crime committed by the Defendant constituted a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) and a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (aggravated Injury resulting from Rape, etc.), although it conforms to its substance, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the instant crime committed by the Defendant constituted a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (aggravated Injury resulting from Rape, etc.). In addition, in the event of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (aggravated Injury resulting from Rape, etc.), the lower court erred by actively reviewing the mitigation of attempted crimes, and thereby,

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant that was unfair in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The lower court exempted the Defendant from the disclosure and notification order despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, in light of the following: (a) details, means, and methods of the instant crime committed in violation of the disclosure and notification order; and (b) thereby, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. In other words, the Defendant carried the knive knife, beer, and fire extinguishers corresponding to dangerous items, or used the knife, beer, and fire extinguisher corresponding to dangerous items, and exercised the physical force on the victim’s body. Accordingly, the victim is two parts, knife, and inside part of the body.

arrow