강제추행
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal revealed that the Defendants committed an indecent act by deceiving F’s negative part.
2. On September 6, 2015, at around 14:40, the Defendants conspired to commit an indecent act against the Defendants with the F (55 years old) at the main points operated by the F (5 years old) located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, with a view to forcing the Defendants to commit an indecent act against the Defendants. Defendant A, in his hand, f by putting the cryme of the F, putting off the panty and panty, cut off, and talked with F, and Defendant B, who continued to sit around Defendant A, committed an indecent act against the F by force by force.
3. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the F’s statement that the Defendants committed an indecent act is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, considering the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court.
① As to the particulars of the instant report, F reported to the Defendants 112 without paying the alcohol value.
I express my opinion.
② F reported the Defendants’ indecent act to the police officer who was called up by the Defendants, which led the Defendants to report the Defendants’ indecent act from the business of crypation to death, and that the Defendants engaged in cryping business.
If not, it was stated that the indecent act was not reported.
③ At the time of the instant case, F was only slick and creative damage, and said, “I am slick, flick, flick, and flick.”
It is clear that it is difficult to view it as a speech or behavior in the situation of forced indecent conduct, which is forced to be off panty and panty, and which is forced to talk with panty.
Examining the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the prosecutor.
4. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.