logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (제주) 2019.08.14 2019노46
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강제추행)등
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant A1”), and the Defendant did not have committed any indecent act by force by deceiving the victim’s chest part of the victim D, and on June 3, 2016, the victim G (the same shall apply hereinafter) on June 3, 2016.

(2) The Defendant issued an attachment order against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s sexual crime was committed with a sexual intercourse with the intent to cancel the accusation against B on July 27, 2016; and (b) there was no intimidation against the said victim; and (c) the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s disability condition; (d) the Defendant committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against G (rape for Disabled Persons). Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged against the Defendant; (e) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment; and (e) even if the Defendant was found guilty of all the charges of unfair sentencing against the Defendant, taking into account the fact that the Defendant’s sexual crime was sexual intercourse with his or her relative person having consented to the sexual relationship; and (e) the amount of damage to public peace is merely KRW 40,00,00.

B. The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged, on the ground that there was no sexual intercourse with Defendant B 1 or misapprehension of the legal doctrine with the victim G, and committed a sexual intercourse with the victim H, but the said victim was not at the time of mental disability, and did not have to resist due to mental disability, and did not bring about the victim N's wallet.

arrow