강제추행
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the victim’s specific and consistent statement of mistake of facts (defendant B and C), the above Defendants can sufficiently recognize the fact that they committed indecent acts by compulsion.
B. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing (defendant A): a suspended sentence of a fine of five million won
2. Determination
A. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, although there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial.
There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair when comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court with the content of the lower court’s reasoning.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
B. In full view of Defendant A’s previous and one time to determine the allegation of unfair sentencing, but agreed with the victim, and the above Defendant’s motive and circumstance against the crime, degree of damage, personality and conduct of the above Defendant, environment, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed as unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is excessively unreasonable.
C. The defendant A is exempted from the employment restriction order. However, the defendant A is exempted from the employment restriction order.