beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.02.11 2014노1734

준강제추행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim who was locked as at the time of the original trial, and otherwise, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination:

A. At around 02:30 on September 17, 2013, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of the victim F (the 37 years old) immediately next to the victim F (the 37 years old), who was divingd in the 3rd floor lux in the Dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, on the following grounds: (a) on the part of the Defendant: (b) on the part of September 17, 2013, the Defendant: (c) on the part of the victim; (d) on the part of each lux; and (d) on the part of each lux; and (e) on

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, citing the victim’s witness F’s legal statement, the police’s statement, and the on-site photograph as evidence.

C. 1) In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5301, Oct. 11, 2012). 2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, as stated in D located in the Daejeon-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon District Court (hereinafter referred to as "E Ma Ma Ma" in this case) around September 17, 2013, and therefore, the court below should pronounce the charge in this part, even if there is no proof of the crime.