성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강제추행)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, according to the victim's statement, the 112 reported circumstances, and the investigation report (written opinion on the analysis of the statements of children and persons with disabilities), each of the facts charged
The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
2. Determination
A. On August 3, 2019, the lower court held that: (a) the Defendant appeared at the first police station on August 3, 2019 to request the confirmation of CCTV images while denying each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant’s attitude to first respond to the Defendant, such as submitting CCTV images to the police on August 4, 2019; and (c) the Defendant’s statement on the date and time of partial damage and the act of damage in the first statement made by the police station on August 7, 2019 that the victim suffered damage from the Defendant is not subject to a non-prosecution disposition that the Defendant was not subject to suspicion; and (c) the Defendant’s “Defendant” in Article 3(2) of the CCTV image of the lower judgment appears to be a clerical error of “victim”.
According to the contents of the crime committed on July 25, 2019, according to the attitude of the defendant at the time of the crime, the distance between the victim and the victim, the location of the defendant's son, and the situation of the victim immediately after the crime committed on July 26, 2019, the evidence, such as the statement of the victim, submitted by the prosecutor alone, was proved without any reasonable doubt.
For insufficient reasons, each of the facts charged in this case determined that there is no proof of crime.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the prosecutor (Provided, That the Prosecutor’s assertion is added to the lower court’s judgment as stated below). Accordingly, the
B. The prosecutor’s judgment added by this Court is consistent with the following: (a) the victim’s statement is credibility in line with the CCTV contents of the CCTV images of the Defendant’s management at the time of each of the crimes committed on July 25, 2019 and July 26, 2019 (the face of the victim’s hair and the Defendant’s entry into the warehouse adjacent to the calculating unit).