beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.06.04 2019노2248

강제추행

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

There is no fact that the defendant acted as stated in the facts charged of this case.

In light of the tendency of the victim who reported to the police even if ordinary customers block or take a blance, if the defendant acted as shown in the facts charged of this case, the victim did not immediately report.

On May 30, 2018, the Defendant reported the victim to the police of the police because of the drinking value after drinking alcohol at the restaurant operated by the victim. From that time, the victim asserts that he/she was fit for indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by the Defendant from that time, the credibility of his/her statement is doubtful.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and, in full view of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court rejected such assertion on the following grounds, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

It does not seem that the contents of the victim's statement are specific and natural, and the victim cannot find any motive or reason to mislead the defendant due to false facts, and thus, the credibility of the statement is high.

At the time of the police investigation, the victim made a statement to the effect that “the police officer reported on 112 days before the crime was committed, but before the police officer called out.”

12 The content of the report processing table also conforms to this.

In May 30, 2018, at the time of the Defendant’s request for voluntary movement at around 09:28, the Defendant stated “whether or not there exists any means to bring the victim into the victim” to the question of the police officer, but (a).