강제추행등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution on the charge of assault and defamation among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remaining charges of indecent conduct, which is the remainder of the facts charged.
Therefore, since only the defendant appealed to the part other than the dismissed part of the above indictment, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the remaining part except the dismissed part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. As stated in the facts charged in this case, the defendant misunderstanding the facts was found guilty of the facts charged in this case in the absence of arbitly sparing the victim in the rear side, and both chests were delivered. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the fact that the sentence imposed by the lower court (2 million won in penalty, and 40 hours in sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the sentence was smoothly agreed with the victim of the wrongful sentencing.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
subsection (b) of this section.
① On September 8, 2017, at the first trial date of the lower court held on September 8, 2017, the Defendant acknowledged the entire facts charged while attending the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 25th page of the trial record). However, the Defendant denied the facts charged in this case
The Defendant alleged that he stated to the effect that he would recognize the facts charged at the original trial because he was aware that the judgment would be terminated if only the agreement was reached by law. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had already been agreed with the victim on September 5, 2017, which was before the first trial date of the original trial, the above assertion is difficult to obtain.
(2) The aggrieved person shall be victimized by the defendant.