성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강제추행)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. On October 3, 2014, at around 23:05, the Defendants committed an indecent act by force against the victim, such as discovering the victim (e.g., 54 years of age) coming from the direction of the Jeju Jeju Jeju East-gu, Incheon, by finding out the victim (e.g., the 54 years of age), and attempting to force the victim (e., the victim) by hand, and Defendant A’s chest was able to commit an indecent act by force.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not have any physical contact with the victim.
According to the statement of the victim, although the victim was witnessed that the victim was in the side of the victim's chest, the victim was unable to witness the victim at the time of committing the crime, and even if physical contact was made, it is limited to the defendant B.
Furthermore, Defendant B does not think that it was only an indecent act in the course of threatening with the victim, which does not constitute an indecent act, and the criminal intent of indecent act cannot be recognized.
Defendant
Even if the B’s act is found guilty, so long as Defendant A’s indecent act is not recognized, Defendant B’s act should be regarded as a simple indecent act, not a special indecent act by joint and by force.
Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the charges of the special indecent act by force of this case were guilty solely on the victim’s statement that was difficult to believe and the content is unclear. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months’ suspension of the execution of one year and six months’ imprisonment, 40 hours’ taking the sexual assault treatment course, 120 hours’ providing community service) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. As to the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants are also similar to the grounds for appeal in the original judgment.