beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.22 2016고합401

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강제추행)등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant leased the Gangnam-gu Seoul D Officetel 716, and posted a job offer advertisement to recruit Japanese computer-related staff in the Korea Tourism Internet website E for foreigners by using a lusent thing in Japan between the last two years and using a lusent thing in Japan, and had the Defendant committed an indecent act by intimidation against women found in order to see the report and interview.

At around 10:00 on April 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed an act as if he had a victim F (V, 24 years of age) of Japanese nationality who was found to have reported the above Internet advertisement, and had the victim F (V, 24 years of age) prepare personal information for employment; and (b) took a dangerous object prepared in advance (9.5cm on the blade, 200cm in total length, 20cm in the damaged items; and (c) took the victim’s eye on the part of the victimized person, and frighted the victim’s fingers with plastic cables, which are put on the part of the victimized person; and (d) took the victim’s fingers.

Since then, a gallon gallon 3 cellular phone shooting function of the defendant, in which the victim gallon thallon thallon 3 mobile phone gallon gallon thallon thallon thallon thm thm thm thm thm thm thm thm thm thm thm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm stm st

Accordingly, the defendant took photographs of the body of the victim who could threaten the victim to commit an indecent act by threatening the victim with dangerous objects, and may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F;

1. Each protocol of seizure (voluntary submission) and each list No. 1 (rink 1) of the seizure list are as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was the Defendant, who owned the victim’s knife; and (b) the owner of the seizure list is erroneous.