logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.21 2016노1028
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim’s house is the joint residence of the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant entered the victim’s house with the victim’s implied consent, and thus, the crime of intrusion upon residence cannot be established.

In addition, the defendant only attempted to commit rape under the agreement with the victim and did not commit rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape) among the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant charges”). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, including whether the victim’s implied consent was granted, the victim’s house does not constitute a joint residence of the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant cannot be deemed as having entered the victim’s house with the victim’s implied consent.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant is a person who operates a gym club, and the victim was an employee at the gym club, and the Defendant and the victim were in an internal relationship from October 2013.

On November 2015, the victim sent the Defendant a text message to the police officer, and subsequently changed the door password of the house in which he/she resides (hereinafter “the instant house”).

② The Defendant was able to find up two to three times a week in the instant house and set locked, but there was a separate place where she had been living in the instant house, and the clothes in the instant house are located.

arrow