logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.11.18 2014노293
성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(13세미만미성년자강간등)등
Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The defendant shall be prevented from repeating the crime.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the Defendant did not rape the victim as stated in each of the facts of the instant case, claiming that the person subject to the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) was guilty or misunderstanding of the legal principles.

In light of the fact that at a school with intellectual disability Grade 3 and the intelligence index of which is only 50, the victim viewed sexual assault-related video images included in sexual education and made a false or misleading statement from the defendant that he was sexual assaulted by ordinary people, and that it is difficult to believe that the victim's sexual assault was maintained as it was 5 and 6 times, such as the victim's statement, it is difficult to believe that the victim's sexual assault was maintained as it is, the lower court found the victim guilty of each of the charges of this case on the ground that the victim's statement without credibility is made.

The sentence of imprisonment (10 years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

In light of the contents, etc. of each of the crimes committed by the Defendant in this case, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the content of each of the instant crimes, Defendant’s sexual tendency, etc., the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request to attach an attachment order, despite the recognition of the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, is unlawful.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that “The Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact of rape as recorded in the facts constituting a crime at the time of original adjudication,” by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances known through the records.”

(1) The victim shall be the place, method, and before and after the crime committed by the defendant.

arrow