logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.03.15 2017도21532
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강제추행)등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the guilty guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (excluding the part of non-guilty for the first instance trial) among the facts charged in the instant case, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s appeal concerning the fact-finding, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the determination of the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of the choice of evidence and probative value, which is the substantial judgment of the lower court. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act committed in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a minor’s forced indecent act under the age of 13) as alleged

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the indecent act in this case among the grounds for appeal is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder or that the court below was not subject to adjudication ex officio.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal is allowed, and thus, a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

arrow