성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강제추행)등
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
(b) the defendant;
Defendant and the requester for probation order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecuted case, and the Defendant and the requester for probation order (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) went to a singing toilet on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and they go to the home because the drunk victim did not want to have a boom with the victim because he/she gets out of his/her wall, and they did not force the victim by force.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as follows. The summary of the assertion as to the identity of the perpetrator ① was damaged by a third party at a different point of view while the victim frequently displayed in the singing toilet at the time of the instant case, and was aware that it was caused by the Defendant.
② The victim stated that the perpetrator sustained bit bargaining uniform, which is different from the uniforms of the Defendant at the time of the instant case. Rather, the clothes of the person taken from CCTVs around the time of the instant case (No. 1 to No. 4 (each CCTV-cap photograph) conforms to the above statement.
③ Nevertheless, the police, by showing only CCTV images taken by the Defendant to the victim during the criminal identification process, provided that the Defendant was the perpetrator, thereby causing the victim to be mistakenly identified the Defendant as the perpetrator.
Judgment
In full view of the following facts which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and this court, the victim has credibility in the statement that the defendant designated as the perpetrator, and there is no illegality in the process.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
① At the time of the instant case, the victim stated that he/she went only once to the toilet of the instant building at the time of the instant case, and other circumstances to deem that the victim went to the toilet of the instant building several times are discovered.