logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.25 2015노3406
유사강간등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

80 hours per the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that the victim was sexually raped on July 9, 2015, following the occurrence of the instant case, the victim was sent to the Aju University Hospital and was provided medical treatment, and the police officer did not make any statement about the Defendant’s crime of similar rape in the process of first checking the damage inflicted by the police officer, and the victim did not have any statement about the Defendant’s crime of similar rape even in the accusation prepared on July 10, 2015, the victim’s statement at the investigative agency and the court of the court of the lower trial that the victim was sexually raped by the Defendant cannot be proven. Accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) On July 9, 2015, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite not only did the victim’s cell phone was damaged at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, but also did not have any intention to do so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant alleged that there was no crime of similar rape against the victim even in the lower court, but the lower court acknowledged the credibility of the victim’s statement by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim assaulted the victim by means of cutting down the neck on July 9, 2015, i.e., "the defendant's house to find the victim's house, leading the victim into the room, leading the victim."

Since then, the toilets and the victims have passed.

arrow