아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order are dismissed.
1. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles on the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order
A. Regarding the facts constituting the crime of the alleged crime of paragraph (1) of the court below, the acts by the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant") except the acts in which the defendant put a hand in the inside and outside the tear of the victim C (the name of the victim), infringed the victim's sexual freedom.
Although it cannot be seen that it does not constitute a forced indecent act, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the relevant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. In light of the following facts: (a) the specific form of the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph (1) of the lower court, the victims were 13 and 14 years old at the time of the instant case; (b) the Defendant’s contact with the victims led to a series of processes through several times; and (c) the victims appeared to have been seen after the victims suffered damage, the Defendant’s conduct committed against the victims is deemed to have caused sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public; and (d) the victim’s sexual moral sense was contrary to good sexual morality.
The judgment of the court below contains an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the defendant.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts
A. As to the facts constituting the crime of Article 2 of the lower court’s assertion, the lower court convicted the victim of the relevant facts charged by misunderstanding the facts, even though the Defendant did not induce the victim to commit an indecent act and did not commit any act similar to the victim by force
B. There is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and the judgment of the first instance court was clearly erroneous or factually erroneous.