beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.09 2014노2521

아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant (misunderstanding of facts about the part of the crime, misunderstanding of the legal principle) did not commit an indecent act against the victims, and the statements made by the victims about indecent act are reversed in light of the circumstances and overall circumstances of the statements, time and place of the crime.

The judgment below

Of the guilty parts, mistake of fact or misunderstanding of legal principles is erroneous.

A prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) the defendant's act of flaging the flag or education of the victim D, who is a female, constitutes indecent act by indecent act in itself recognized as an indecent act.

The judgment below

In the middle of innocence, mistake of fact or misapprehension of the legal principle is erroneous.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as follows, which is acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, clearly states the following circumstances, namely, ① the situation in which the Defendant was placed in the Defendant and the toilet; ② the victim G sent the victim to the male toilet; the process in which the Defendant was placed in the victim’s body; the situation in which the Defendant was placed in the victim’s body; and ② the Defendant stated the Defendant’s behavior in his own toilet and within the vehicle with his own pictures, and in particular, the structure of the toilet or the vehicle was in accord with the victim’s statement; ② the victim’s structure and the vehicle structure was also in line with the victim’s statement; ② the victim’s behavior and situation at the time of the Defendant’s own time when the victim occurred, and ③ the victims or their family members did not request an agreement with the Defendant before and after the instant complaint; ③ there was no need to make a false statement to make a false statement to the Defendant, who was the juvenile of the age victim.