(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.03.31 2015노668 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.03.31 2015노668

강간등

Text

1. The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

3.Provided, That this judgment shall not apply.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s intimidation on June 4, 2015 (No. 7) (Defendant 1’s mistake of facts), there was a change in the victim’s mobile phone name and number on the same day, and thus, the message could not be transmitted. Therefore, the crime of intimidation is not established.

B) On the part of the injury, there was a little physical fighting between the Defendant and the victim, and there was no injury on the part of the Defendant.

C) As to each confinement, the crime of confinement is not established since the victim could escape from the defendant's house at any time.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the rape by a prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, in full view of the following: (a) the victim made consistent and specific statements; and (b) other facts charged against the victim; and (c) the detention on June 13, 2015: (a) the defect that the Defendant could not get out of the clothes immediately after rape was rape; (b) the Defendant was found guilty of having committed rape; and (c) the detention did not recognize that the Defendant was guilty of having been rape; and (d) the judgment that found the Defendant guilty of having committed rape was inconsistent with one another, without recognizing the cause thereof.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts, each crime of confinement under law is an offense that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the freedom of action as the protected legal interest, and thus makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area as such, not only physical and tangible obstacles but also psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is to restrict a person’s freedom of action.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노2237

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.23 2016노3438

-서울고등법원 2014.02.28 2013노3599

-수원지방법원 2015.09.02 2014노5022

-대전지방법원 2018.04.11 2017노3975