강제추행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, exchanged the victim with the telephone number, and divided a short talk for a short time so that the victim does not want to go beyond the victim, and there was no indecent act by force as indicated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the allegation in the grounds of appeal.
The court below made a statement to the effect that ① immediately after the case, the victim made a statement to the police that “the defendant saw the pathy (see, e.g., Disposition No. 9-10 of Investigation Records)” and “the defendant was at the time when the defendant was drunk, but he was under the influence of alcohol at the time.” (see, e.g., recorded the record of the witness examination as to D). The victim’s statement to the effect that “the defendant was at the time when the victim was spathy,” and that “the defendant was at the time when the victim was spathy, and was at the time when the victim was spathy (see, e.g., Disposition No. 5 of the witness examination), it is specific and consistent to the extent that the victim’s statement concerning the circumstances at the time of indecent act cannot be experienced directly, and thus, credibility is recognized in the witness’s statement. ② The witness E appears to have been placed in front of the victim’s handbuck, and that the victim’s statement was not in accordance with the victim’s oral testimony.