logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.23 2016노369
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강간)등
Text

Defendant

In addition, both the appeal filed by the respondent A and the defendant B shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the defendant, and on the part of the case of the attachment order concerning the defendant B, the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter the defendant) to whom the attachment order was attached, to dismiss the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the attachment order concerning the defendant B. Since only the defendants appealed, there is no benefit of appeal as to the part of the case of the attachment order concerning the defendant B.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Devices Attachment, the part of the judgment below regarding the attachment order related to Defendant B is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the attachment order related to the Defendant and Defendant A.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) was guilty of all the facts charged against Defendant A, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, on the contrary, inasmuch as Defendant A merely engaged in a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim G, and did not know that there was a mental disorder to the victim G, and neither interfered with the business of the restaurant operated by the victim I nor threatened the victim I.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A, who was improper in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, including Defendant B’s mistake of facts, did not know that Defendant B had a mental disability to the victim G, and the victim G had a point of view to the extent that it can exercise its right to sexual self-determination, but the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case of Defendant A).

arrow