성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, Kamerra, etc. dated April 21, 2012 and May 9, 2012.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the victim consented to the shooting of April 21, 2012 and May 9, 2012.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Summary of this part of the facts charged
1. At around 04:30 on April 21, 2012, the Defendant taken twice the part of the victim’s cell phone, which might cause a sense of sexual shame by using the cell phone device of the Defendant, located in the Momeras, in the Momerase room where the trade name near the D Station located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, cannot be known.
2. On May 9, 2012, around 03:39, the Defendant taken four times against his/her will the sound of the victim who could cause a sense of sexual shame by the said method within the guest room in which the trade name near the D Station located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City is unknown.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim testified that the defendant did not consent to the photographing of the victim's body body pictures at the investigative agency. However, the court below attended the court below as a witness and stated that "I would like to answer to the prosecutor's question that "I would like to say that the defendant would like to be able to ask the witness, but I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to "I would like to ask the witness for the questions of "I would like to ask the witness who was locked without asking him," and then asked the prosecutor's question that "I would like to say that I would like to ask the witness every three times to make a report and affix him a photograph after giving his consent."
The answer was also made to "the answer".
C. In a judgment, the probative value that leads a judge to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.