Facts
The appellant [X.] was found guilty by the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau of multiple qualified sexual coercion, multiple qualified rape, multiple endangerment of life, theft, and multiple exploitation of a state of distress. The lower court sentenced him to a total of eight years' imprisonment and ordered a penal accompaniment ambulatory psychotherapeutic treatment.
[X.] lodged a criminal complaint and requested that he be fully acquitted. He argued that the lower court's findings of fact and assessment of the evidence were arbitrary and that the victims had consented to the sexual acts.
The lower court found that the victims had not been informed about the planned bondage practices and that the victims' consent was not present. The lower court found that the appellant had sexually coerced the victims by exploiting their state of distress and had put their lives in danger through strangulation.
Considerations
1. Consent and arbitrariness
The Federal Court reviews the findings of fact from the perspective of arbitrariness. The complaint of a violation of the ban on arbitrariness must be raised and justified in the complaint. The lower court found that the victims had not been informed about the planned bondage practices and that the victims' consent was not present.
2. Assessment of evidence
The lower court was generally allowed to refer to the first-instance assessment of evidence, as long as its judgment remains comprehensible. The lower court found that the victims had not been informed about the planned bondage practices and that the victims' consent was not present.
3. Qualified commission of the offense
The lower court found that the appellant had sexually coerced the victims by exploiting their state of distress and had put their lives in danger through…