logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.06.08 2017노203
강도강간미수등
Text

The judgment below

The appeal filed by both the Defendant and the prosecutor on the part of the case is dismissed.

The judgment below

(2).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a 12 years of imprisonment, etc.) on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) legal principles (excluding acquittal) of the instant facts charged: ① Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (Rape) sentenced to acquittal in the lower court among the instant facts charged; ② Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (Special Rape); ② Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof sentenced to acquittal in the lower court; ② the victim is the same; ② the victim is the same; ② the victim is the same; ② the crime is consistently stated to the effect that the victim was the same; ② the Defendant’s DNA found in the body of the victim was the same; ② the above crimes are proved as evidence; ② the above crimes also constitute “when there is any scientific evidence that can prove the crime, such as DNA evidence,” as provided in Article 21(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. Accordingly, the statute of limitations shall be extended by 10 years.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, cannot be deemed as constituting “when there is any scientific evidence to prove the crime, such as DNA evidence,” and Article 21(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes does not apply, and accordingly, the foregoing crime (i) has already been prosecuted prior to the institution of the instant public prosecution.

In view of the acquittal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 21(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2...

arrow