강제추행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) on April 10, 2016, at the entrance of the first floor of the commercial building around 18:00, the Defendant had a physical contact with G in the course of drinking water with the accompanying H, and (b) had no intention to commit an indecent act by force by using the G’s chest and her part on his/her hand with his/her hand.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the grounds of the testimony of G without credibility, etc., thereby misleading the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On April 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act by coercioning the victim G (the age of 40) who passed before the Defendant in order to take toilets at the entrance of the first commercial building in the F commercial building in Silung-si, Yung-si on April 10, 2016; and (b) reporting the victim G (the age of 40) by extending back the victim’s own hand to his/her hands, thereby using the victim’s chest and part of the ship.
B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following evidence: (a) the Defendant’s partial statement in the lower court; (b) G’s legal statement in G; (c) the prosecutor’s office and the police’s respective statements in G; (d) H’s written statements; and (e) two CCTVs in CCTV as evidence; and (e) according to each of the above evidence, the victim G consistently used the Defendant’s right chest from the investigative agency to the lower court’s hand to the part of the Defendant
The statement is made, ② The statement submitted by the Defendant, who appears to have been witness of the crime, stated that there was contact between the Defendant and the victim in the statement submitted to the investigative agency immediately after the crime was committed. ③ According to CCTV images in which the commission of the crime was recorded, the Defendant was h’s son and h’s son, and h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h. The Defendant