강제추행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) asserted only the mistake of the fact that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim on the grounds of appeal as the grounds for appeal. However, the attorney’s written opinion proposed on December 19, 2017 presented an unfair assertion in sentencing.
Such assertion shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal, which is raised after the expiration of the period for submission of the written reason for appeal.
B. In full view of the fact that even if examined ex officio, the crime quality of the instant crime is not weak, that the Defendant does not seem to have any reflective form, and that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party, etc., the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, 120 hours of community service order, 40 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, 40 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, and the cost of litigation) cannot be deemed unfair because it
The defendant has no fact that he commits an indecent act against the victim, and the possibility that F commits an indecent act against the victim cannot be ruled out.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s conclusion that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
① The victim had been a male student for six months from F’s “D main points” operated by F, and had friendship with the Defendant operating a cafeteria in the vicinity of D main points.
On the day of the instant case, the victim visited F and the Defendant of drinking water in line with the university course. At first, the Defendant and the two drinking were drinking together with F, L, the president, etc. of the L, etc. at “L,” and the victim was drinking together with F, L, the Plaintiff, and the two drinking at D, according to the horses of F, under the influence of alcohol around 03:00.