beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.03.30 2016고단4445

강제추행

Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 02:30 of the facts charged, at a singing room located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) moved to a singing room on the side of a restaurant (at least 26 years of age) with the victim E (at least 26 years of age) who was seated and became aware of being seated.

The Defendant, while playing in the course of driving and sounding the victim, was sitting in the side of the victim's mind that he wanting to commit an indecent act against the victim, and she was able to look at the victim's left hand, cut off the victim's arms, cut off the victim's arms, and bucks down the victim's left side.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

2. The determination of indecent act is objectively an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus, it constitutes an infringement on the victim’s sexual freedom. The determination should be made with careful consideration of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the perpetrator and the injured person, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of the act, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual morality concept in the era.

Witness

According to the statement of E and the statement of the police statement of E, it is recognized that the defendant was seated in the side of E in the singing room, brought the damage of E, s aground in the Hebbbbbbbbbbs, and was humping E's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h'

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act alone, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and infringes upon the E’s sexual freedom as an act contrary to good sexual morality. It is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s act to be contrary to the E’s intent, while recognizing that it was contrary to the E’s intent, had the intention