beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.29 2015고합12

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강제추행)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 21, 2014, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim with mental disorder 3 in the bus stops located in 01:0 on September 21, 2014, by putting him in the victim’s clothes his own fingers and putting him in talks with the victim’s chests.

Summary of Evidence

1. Any statement made by the defendant in a part appropriate for such statement in this Act;

1. Any statement made by the victim so far as the statement has been made by this Act;

1. A statement fit for such statement among certificates of persons with disabilities issued to victims;

1. Any statement of the disability diagnosis report prepared by doctors D with respect to victims, which is appropriate for such statement;

1. The victim's statement, the defendant, the defense counsel's assertion, and the judgment of this court

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant agreed with the victim and expressed patriotism in accordance with mutual agreement. Even if not, in light of the situation at the time of consent of the victim, there is no intention to commit indecent act.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The Defendant came to know of the victim at the welfare center for the disabled in August 2010, and was living together with the victim around August 2014, the Defendant disputed with the victim and the defendant's female problem. The victim was living together with the minor after hearing the litigation that the Defendant became her child, and returned to C in the city where her mother was her mother.

(2) While the Defendant was able to look back with the victim again, at around September 2014, the Defendant received contact from the victim and then came to look at the victim’s house by reconciliationing with the victim and finding it again, and attempted to agree with the judgment, but the Defendant refused to meet again, and saw the victim to receive a call from the victim in the future.

(3) The Defendant is a mobile phone delivered to the victim.