강제추행
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant was kneeing the victim’s left side knee with hand, etc., and did not rhumbbbucks in his hand.
2) As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the act of using the victim’s buckbucks as his hand does not constitute an indecent act committed against indecent act by force.
3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair, and the Defendant is anticipated to contact female employees while engaging in the food service. Therefore, the disclosure order and notification order are required.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact, namely, the injured person, from the police to the lower court, was killed of the victim on the top of a passenger car operation, following the Defendant’s completion of a new 3 plenary session on the day of the instant case at the time of the lower court’s trial.
The defendant dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump.
Then, the Defendant parked his vehicle in the telecom parking lot, and again went to another hotel as the victim resisted, therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that 112 report was consistent with the process of the instant case and the subsequent circumstances, and the victim’s 112 report was confirmed to the effect that he was sexually indecent act three times during the period from 03:23 to 03:29 on the day of the instant case, and that 112 report was made to the effect that the victim was sexually indecent act on three occasions. In light of the above, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Defendant was able to recognize the fact that the victim was able to use the victim’s bucks and bucks while driving the telecom regardless of the victim’s will, and then, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts cannot be accepted.
B. The Defendant’s legal doctrine is erroneous.