아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;
3.Provided, That the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive shall be the same.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim, and did not recognize that the victim was a juvenile under the age of 19.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the Defendant’s statement was acknowledged on the following grounds: (a) not only the Defendant’s act, content of damage, shot and reaction of the victim, and the victim’s perception and response, but also the victim’s statement on the situation before and after the crime was committed specific and detailed; (b) the Defendant’s relationship with the victim, details of the victim’s report, etc.; and (c) there
In light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the court below's opinion, i.e., (i) the victim reported to the police immediately after the forced indecent act of this case was committed and the victim reported to the defendant, and (ii) the victim did not have any specific counter-defluence against the defendant before the crime of this case was committed, and there is no reason for the victim to gather the defendant, the court below's aforementioned judgment is just, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
2) The Defendant, as well as the Defendant, aware of the fact that the victim was a juvenile under the age of 19, argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court accordingly, included in the video recording.