beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.11 2014노2775

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the facts that the defendant committed an indecent act by deceiving the victim's chest and the negative part of the victim as stated in the facts charged are sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the interests of the defendant cannot be determined by the interests of the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, there are CCTV videos installed at a soup bank, which is the place of crime, for example, the police preparation as well as the statement of the victim and the CCTV screen installed at the soup bank, which is the place of crime.

First of all, the CCTV screen installed in a soup room is similar to the appearance of the defendant, such as physical shooting, which appears in the above video, but it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is the defendant in the video because the appearance of the video is bad and the face of the offender has not been taken properly.

다음으로, 피해자의 진술에 관하여 보건대, 피해자는 범인이 “175cm 에서 180cm 정도의 키에 깡마른 체격으로, 쭈볏쭈볏 서진 머리스타일에, 등이 조금 굽어 허우적거리면서 걸었다”고 인상착의를 비교적 상세하게 묘사하면서 피고인을 범인이라고 지목하였다.

However, considering the circumstances in which the defendant was designated as an offender, the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report from the victim confirmed CCTV and identified the defendant as an offender and received confirmation from the victim (Evidence No. 8 pages).