강제추행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was a patient suffering from her disability by coercion, and the Defendant was seated in the upper part of the vessel at the time of the instant case in order to check whether the goods located in the upper part of the vessel at the time of the instant case, and the her amb, which had been exercising during the event, was physically approaching the Defendant’s face, and the Defendant’s face with the intent of indecent act by compulsion as stated in the facts charged, does not commit an indecent act in a way that he or she was able to face e or f’s am.
(Judgment of the facts against the defendant). The sentence of the court below (2 million won suspension of sentence) against the defendant is too uncomfortable and unfair.
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. A. A summary of the facts charged in this case 1) On October 17, 2013, around 17:30, the Defendant found the “F (n, 27 years old) that had been engaged in the drinking event at D’s 1st floor food store located in Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and committed an indecent act against the victim’s will against the victim’s will, by means of the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her b
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged as evidence of witness E and G’s statement, etc.
3. In a criminal trial for a trial for a trial of a political party, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach such a degree that it would lead to such conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s interest even if there is a suspicion of guilt.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3722, Sept. 26, 2013). The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.