logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.07.15 2015노264
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간등)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim, at an investigative agency and a court of the court below, consistently and clearly states the fact that he/she was rape and indecent act by compulsion, as stated in the facts charged of this case, and such a statement by the victim with credibility, can sufficiently be found guilty of the facts charged

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by denying the credibility of the victim’s statement and by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The Defendant charged with this case is the director-general of the Busan District Office and the director-general of the Busan District Office, and the victim D (the age of 29) is the contractual teacher who belongs to the Busan District Office. A.

On February 2, 2013, at around 02:0, the Defendant was at the house of the victim of the 3 504 Doo apartment unit in Busan, Busan, Busan, the Defendant got to drink with the victim before that time, and went to the house and intrudes the victim into the house in order for the victim to enter the house, and then, the Defendant got off the house and intruded the victim into the house with the racker “to write off the toilet,” and racked the victim into the house, cut off his body, cut off his clothes, and sexual intercourse.

B. The Defendant around 03:00 on May 1, 2013

At the place indicated in the port, the victim, who had drinking together, she did not come home to the other male club fee, she does not go back to the house, and she did so. Accordingly, the victim, who was suffering from drinking, opened the door, confirmed the absence of any other person in the house, and thereafter, stated in the claim that "Neas, maas, fright, and fright to do so," "Ieas, fright, and fright to do so," and brought the victim into the room, and committed an indecent act by force against the victim.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) although the statements in D’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court were actually made as evidence consistent with the facts charged of the instant case, the following circumstances are as follows.

arrow