logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2020.10.30 2020노161
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강제추행)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Although the defendant in mistake of facts kissk on both sides of the victim's damage and kisk on the right side of the victim, there was no intention of indecent act.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 20 million won, 3 years restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

The lower court also asserted the same purport in the judgment of the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and stated in the lower court that the Defendant committed an indecent act by compulsion on the grounds that not only the victim but also the victim’s crime appears to have caused sexual humiliation or aversion from the perspective of ordinary people, i.e., ① the Defendant is a male aged 5, the victim was the victim aged 5, and the victim was frightly mawd from the street to the female baby aged 9, ② the Defendant was her knick, and the victim was unable to understand the victim’s knick as his hand, and the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim. ② The Defendant stated in the investigative agency that “the victim was flick of the Defendant’s act,” and the Defendant’s crime appears to have caused sexual humiliation or aversion from the perspective of ordinary people. ④ The Defendant committed an indecent act by compulsion on the grounds that she escaped from the Defendant.

In the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the defendant stated at an investigative agency that the defendant did not do so to a child who did not know that he did not do so (Evidence No. 107, No. 132). ii) The defendant continued to be the victim, under the influence of the defendant's horse, who was boomed by him.

arrow