강제추행치상등
All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The victim’s statement on this part of the mistake of facts as to indecent act by compulsion is considerably lacking consistency in the specific description, and thus, there is no credibility. At the time, the Defendant attempted to make physical contact at a level permissible by social norms as a relation with the victim, and immediately ceased to stop the victim’s refusal. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. (ii) there is no consistency in the victim’s statement on the mistake of facts as to the injury of the victim, and there is no credibility since the victim’s statement on this part of the facts charged was based on the victim’s statement without credibility.
Also, the photograph taken by the victim is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.
On the other hand, the victim had been king of the right bridge part due to a unreasonable movement around the end of June 2013, 2013, which was the relocation of the instant case, and there was a king of the pathral damage, gale damage, and g
Ultimately, there is no evidence suggesting that the victim sustained injury that requires four weeks' medical treatment due to the defendant's act like this part of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because of the following: (a) mistake of facts as to evasion of compulsory execution; (b) mistake of facts as to Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) and V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”); (b) the same business purpose, place of business, location of office, organization of executive officers and employees; and (c) the time when V was established is after the victim R has won the lawsuit against the Defendant and Q against the Defendant in a contract demand against the Defendant and Q; and (b) the objective of evading the Defendant’s compulsory execution is sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by evading compulsory execution against the defendant.