아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(준유사성행위)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. There is no fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) at all.
The statements made by the victim, the only direct evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged, is not consistent, and it is difficult to provide credibility, such as the passage of time.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, and 10 years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement that the Defendant committed quasi-indecent act, such as this part of the facts charged, could have been reliable.
① The victim has consistently and specifically stated the circumstances and circumstances in which he/she was damaged by the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the details of the damage, the appraisal and state of the victim saw at the time, and the circumstances after he/she was damaged, etc., and the content itself does not have any special contradictions. No special contradictions are found in the victim’s statement in the court of the court of the court below, and it appears that the victim has naturally and naturally expressed his/her attitude or appearance, without the perception that
② After the victim suffered damages as stated in Article 2-b of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the victim stated the fact of damage to his male-child room by the I Messen or telephone, and reported the damage to 112. On the other hand, immediately after the victim’s damage, it is difficult to see that the victim ssengered the fact of damage in order to mislead the defendant, and otherwise, it is difficult to see that the victim ssengered the fact of damage in order to mislead the defendant.