beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017노3574

아동복지법위반(아동에대한음행강요ㆍ매개ㆍ성희롱등)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Although the statement of the victimized child was sufficiently reliable, the court below rejected its credibility and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal to amend indictment.

In the facts charged in the trial, the prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Amendment to Bill of Amendment with the content that "the victim E (the remaining and the age of five) was changed to "the method in which the victim E (the remaining and the age of five) gets her body while leaving the water to take part in the water and was unable to adapt themselves, such as making water-free, even though the victim E (the remaining and the age of five) was taking part in the course of his/her own swimming course," and this Court permitted this Court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

B. The judgment on the changed facts charged (1) was based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant committed sexual harassment, etc., such as sexual harassment, etc., that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation to the victim’s sexual humiliation, etc., by taking the victim’s body while leaving the water in order for the Defendant, who is an instructor of the above center, to learn the swimming. (b) The Defendant, at around 15:00 on September 20, 201, was sexually abused the victim’s sexual humiliation, etc.

(2) (A) In a criminal trial, the recognition of a criminal fact ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent to have the aforementioned convictions, there is contradictions in the Defendant’s assertion or defense, or is not able to influence.