logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.02.06 2013노2394
청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(청소년강간등)등
Text

The judgment below

All parts of Defendant B, excluding the dismissed part of Defendant B, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and sentenced Defendant B to five years, and dismissed the public prosecution regarding intimidation. Among them, Defendant B filed an appeal only regarding the guilty portion, the dismissal of the public prosecution became final and conclusive separately from the lapse of the appeal period.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining part of the judgment below excluding the defendant B's dismissal dismissal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order: (a) each rape of the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order: (b) the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not assault or assault the victim F or commit rape; (c) however, the victim’s mother, upon the victim’s request by the Defendant B, entered the her mother.

There is only the enemy from the world.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B) The Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Juvenile Rape, etc.) entered a hotel with the victim G, but the Defendant was also unaware of the victim’s request, and the Defendant did not have any assault or threat to G at that time, and returned to the house without having attempted to make sexual contact itself. As such, this part is deemed to have not been the commencement of rape. (c) Each intimidation was made upon B’s request, and the Defendant only prepared a letter that he did not do so, and sent a message to B or F’s cellular phone, and there was no intention to inform F of the harm and injury.

In particular, the text messages sent to B had become aware that they would have been retransmittinged to F, and this part of the facts charged is all included.

arrow