beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.21 2019노2459

강제추행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. At the time of the instant case, the gist of the grounds for appeal was as follows: (a) while drunkly drunked by the Defendant, the Defendant was only sucked in the victim’s bridge (in the middle part of the buckbucks), the Defendant did not put the victim’s her knick with his her knick.

The victim's statement is not reliable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts, in a case where the statements by the victim of legal principles are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, they shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable evidence to deem that they are objectively acceptable, and in a case where the victim’s statements are consistent in major parts, the victim’s statements are somewhat inconsistent with the statements concerning other minor matters, etc., the credibility of the statements shall not be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). (2) In light of the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the lower court, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim by intentionally extending his/her hand to the victim.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

0. Although there is a little exaggeration that the victim stated that her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

0. The defendant 's "the defendant was provoking to the unclaimed mind, but the victim was provoking without any reaction.

The statement "" is not consistent with objective CCTVs, but rather, the victim has resisted in front and rear.

‘The statement is believed to be consistent with CCTV images.'

B. (1) Ex officio determination is made.