성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. On March 28, 2016, around 22:14, 2016, the defendant committed an indecent act by the victim F, who was the victim F, with the investigative agency from March 28, 2016 to the court below.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant consistently stated, even based on on on field CCTV, and the fact that the victim’s macks down following the victim’s macks and passes through the exchange macks, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that the victim’s macks down one time and commits indecent acts in the public densely-populated place, such as the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.
2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, following the victim’s behind G, one’s own daily activities, deemed that the Defendant and G, from the subway exit from the subway exit, attempted to commit an indecent act against the Defendant in light of all the circumstances, such as the situation and time during which the Defendant’s attitude, marking, and physical contact took place at the time of the Defendant’s person, and the victim’s attempt to commit an indecent act against the Defendant in light of the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant, from the point of view of the Defendant’s behavior, had the intention to commit an indecent act against the Defendant in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant and G, from the subway exit to the point of time; and (b) the opportunity for the victim to pass through the subway opening exit without paying the subway fare again; and (c) the Defendant, from the perspective of reproducing the subway CCTV video images recorded by the Defendant’s behavior as above, had the intent
(3) At that time, the victim also passed the Defendant as follows: “I do not seem to have been able to leave the station, and passed the Defendant as soon as I had followed.”
“The Defendant made a statement to the effect that he resisted the Defendant’s fluent behavior, and instead, the Defendant did not go against the Defendant, but rather fluencing the Defendant’s fluent mind, and at the same time, she was at risk of personal danger.