beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Although a public prosecutor was prosecuted as a charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the lower court exercised any tangible power against the victim.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that he/she made intimidation or intimidation, the above facts charged are acquitted, but the above facts charged are found guilty, and the above facts charged are found guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (defensive Rape, etc.) and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
However, the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion of the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and did not file an appeal on the convicted portion on the grounds of not guilty on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the part other than the guilty portion on the grounds of the principle of no appeal by the principle of no appeal by the principle of no appeal by the court below may also be transferred to the trial. However, since the part is already relieved from the object of an attack and defense between the parties and is de facto relieved from the object of the trial, it cannot be determined on the part as a trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Ultimately, the scope of a party member’s trial by the lower court is limited to the part of a residential intrusion and a crime of violating
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is that the Defendant entered the house by opening the door, and furthermore, it is deemed that there was no intention of entering the house. However, the lower court recognized that the Defendant had invaded upon the victim’s residence by misunderstanding of facts.
B) Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the lower court did not have committed an indecent act against the victim.