 |
| In-person father who raped a drunken daughter was sentenced to medium sentence in appeals after the first trial./News1 DB |
After the first trial, the insidious father who raped her drunken daughter was sentenced to medium sentence at the appeal trial. The accused claimed innocence, saying, “It is sex by agreement,” but the court refused to accept it. The daughter, who was raped, even tried to make extreme choices.
Gwangju High Court Jeonju Tribunal 1st Criminal Division (presiding judge Kim Seong-ju) dismissed the appeal of the defendant and the prosecutor in an appeal against Mr. A (50), who was charged with violating the Special Case Law (rape due to kinship), regarding the punishment of sexual violence crimes It was announced on the 1st that it had maintained the court case sentenced to 9 years.
It was maintained for 7 years and 10 years for electronic devices attached to children, adolescents, and disabled-related organizations ordered by the court below.
Mr. A was accused of raping his daughter B (20s), who was drunk in a studio in Jeonbuk, twice in the early morning of April.
According to the courts, Mr. B, who had lived in a studio with Mr. A since the end of March last year, ate a night snack with his father and drank alcohol on the day of the incident.
While drinking, Mr. A told his daughter about the fact that he had lived in prison for sex crimes in the past and that he almost killed a person.
In fact, Mr. A was sentenced to jail for rape in 2012, and it was revealed that he was released in 2017. In addition, it was confirmed that he was punished several times for sexual crimes.
Mr. B was terrified at the scary story he heard for the first time. Seeing this, Mr. A suddenly turned into a wolf, and after subduing Mr. B who was drunk, he raped twice.
Mr. B, who had been raped, ran away while Mr. A went to the bathroom and reported it to the police.
It is reported that Mr. A’s crime worsened his depression, and attempted an extreme option 10 days after the incident.
Mr. A said in court, “We agreed to have sex. I did not force it,” he denied the charges.
When the first trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison for “the crime is very bad,” the defendant appealed for reasons such as false conviction and improper sentencing, and the prosecutor for improper sentencing.
The Court of Appeals said, “Even though the defendant was punished for sexual crimes several times and sentenced to prison for a similar crime, he committed a crime of sexual assault on his own daughter.” “The crime was committed within one month after the end of the criminal offense. Considering that the situation after the crime is not good, such as denying each crime in the case, severe punishment is inevitable.”
However, he concluded, “As the first trial court decided the sentence by reflecting all these circumstances, it is difficult to see that the sentence sentenced by the court below was out of the reasonable range of discretion, as the defendants or prosecutors argued.”
Regarding the prosecutor’s unfair claim on the order to disclose personal information, he said, “Because the defendant and the victim are relatives, if the personal information of the defendant, which includes the gist of each crime in this case, is publicly notified, there is a concern about the disclosure of the personal information of the victim.” It seems that there are no special circumstances in which the personal information of the accused should be disclosed as it is expected that the effect of preventing recidivism can be expected with information registration, employment restrictions, and electronic anklets.”