성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact-finding that there is no objective evidence to support the instant facts charged, the Defendant committed each indecent act against the victims in the electric train of Seoul subway No. 9, Seoul subway No. 9 around June 10, 2016 and around 19:15 on June 10, 2016.
Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, community service, 160 hours, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant’s sexual organ in the front line of the subway No. 9, which passed around 19:10 on June 10, 2016, had the Defendant’s sexual organ located in Dongjak-gu Seoul, Seoul, located in the victim D’s her mbbbbbs and so on. The Defendant indecently committed the Defendant’s indecent act on the part of the Defendant around 19:15 on June 14, 2016 at the high speed terminal station located in subway No. 9, subway No. 19:15 on the same day. The Defendant was on board the front line in the direction of the Silsan. The Defendant’s mbbs and the victim’s sexual organ repeatedly had his mbs and the Defendant’s sexual organ up to the calendar’s intention. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant committed the indecent act is insufficient.
B. Reviewing the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties, and the fact that the victims wish to punish the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant, and the defendant is the primary offender, etc. is favorable to the defendant.
In addition, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence of the lower court is too heavy.