(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night, joint arrest);

Housing Chungcheongnam-gu District;

Permanent domicile Danam-Jin-gun

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment (at night, community distribution)

(A) The Defendant did not commit any indecent act by force against the victim, and there is no arrest of the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts. On the contrary, the prosecutor’s statement that the Defendant made in a confession by the Defendant Dol Dol was made in a state of self-confiscence and pressure, and it is not voluntary and credibility. The Defendant’s statement in the court of the lower court was made in a state of self-confiscence and credibility, and the Defendant’s statement in the court of the lower court demanded the presence of the prosecutor who investigated the Defendant, but other prosecutor was present, but it was recognized as a criminal fact by the prosecutor’s meeting and pressure. Thus, it is only recognized that the court of the lower court, who had judged the reversal late

(B) Even if this part of the facts charged is found guilty, the facts charged that “the Defendant was arrested by approximately 10 meters of the victim’s arms and the passenger to the car,” is merely an act accompanied by a series of indecent acts, and is in the relation to the crime of indecent act by force and the crime of blanket indecent act, so insofar as there is no complaint as to the crime of indecent act by force which is an offense subject to victim’s complaint, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to the blanket offense, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

(2) As to the divulgence of secrets as stated in Paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment below, even if the defendant informed the victim that "I would have to be recognized inevitably because I would have been submitted," the defendant would rather urge the victim to cooperate with the investigation, and it did not interfere with or interfere with the investigation, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of the disclosure of secrets on official duty, and thereby, found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the defendant works in good faith as a long-term police officer, it is unfair that the sentence of the court below (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment (at night, community distribution)

(A) Whether the defendant's prosecutor's office and court of the court below credibility of the statement

1) The mere reason why the confession in the prosecution is different from the statement in the court cannot be deemed to be a ground to believe that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, in determining the credibility of the confession, whether the content of the confession itself is objectively rational, what is the motive of the confession, what is the reason why the confession was caused, and circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

In light of the fact that there is no conflict or inconsistency with the confessions of the accused, it is necessary to determine whether there is a reasonable doubt in the grounds or the motive or process of the confessions of the accused under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) The Defendant reversed the confession at the prosecutor's office and the court below's judgment and denied the crime of this case. Thus, since the Defendant was appointed as a policeman belonging to the police station around October 30, 1980, he appears to have been with professional knowledge to the extent that he could not compare with the general public with the investigation procedure, investigation, and investigation techniques, etc. for 25 years since he worked for the police station around October 30, 1980, and ② In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of qualification for giving and receiving brain water at the Seosan branch of the Daejeon District Court around March 26, 193, and was sentenced to suspension of qualification for the exercise of false official documents, and was sentenced to a verdict of innocence after the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court. Thus, the Defendant, who is a police officer, was a police officer.

In addition, in light of the criminal experience that was not shaken as above, it is difficult to believe that the confessions made by the prosecutor of this case and the court of the original instance only by the prosecutor’s meeting and pressure of the prosecutor’s office. ③ In full view of the fact that the confessions made by the prosecutor of the defendant and the court of the original instance in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the original court were made in the situation where the victim did not file a complaint on the part of indecent act by compulsion, the confessions made in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the original court that led to all the facts charged of this case are objectively unreasonable, or there is no circumstance

(B) Whether the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (at night and joint arrest) is accompanied by the indecent act by an indecent act by a single comprehensive crime

1) Even if the act of arrest and detention becomes a means of robbery or rape, if it cannot be deemed as a part of the act of robbery or rape, the crime of arrest and detention shall be constituted without absorption into robbery or rape (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2715, Jan. 21, 1997, etc.). The establishment of the crime of rape is not always accompanied by confinement by necessary means, and it cannot be said that the act of confinement was committed in a certain place to achieve the purpose of the crime of rape and does not constitute a crime. Since the above act of confinement was a separate crime, it does not affect the crime of rape even if the victim revoked the complaint of the crime of rape (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do1550, Aug. 21, 1984). The above legal principle applies to the crime of robbery.

2) In the grounds of appeal, the defendant arrested the victim's arms, on August 31, 2004, as stated in the facts charged, the defendant asserts that the defendant's act of attracting the victim's arms is against the defendant's automobile parked on the street of Masan-si and below 00 on August 31, 204, such as the defendant's act of inducing the victim's arms, and that the victim's own seat was milch with the victim's upper seat, and that the defendant's act of inducing the victim's chest is against the victim's breast, and that the defendant's chest's face was against the victim's body, such as the defendant's act of inducing about 10 meters of 10 meters of her arms and 6 meters of her chest, and that he continued to arrest the victim's chest and her chest, and that the defendant's act of inducing the victim's chest is against the victim's body, as stated in the investigation record.

However, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of inducing the victim was an act of indecent act by compulsion before leaving the victim's escape, the victim's act of indecent act by indecent act was committed again after being towed by the victim, and the defendant led the victim's arms as part of his body. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of inducing the victim's bodily injury itself is an act of indecent act by indecent act and the act of spreading the victim is an inherent act of indecent act by indecent act as mentioned above, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of arresting the victim was a means to bring the victim to a certain place in order to achieve the purpose of the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act. Thus, the defendant's assertion that such arrest is absorption into the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act and does not constitute a separate crime as an

(2) The fact that the criminal facts of the court below stated in Paragraph (2) are disclosed for official duties.

(A) Scope of confidential information for official duties

Article 127 of the Criminal Code provides that a person who is or was a public official shall divulge a secret in the course of performing his/her duties pursuant to the law. In this case, the term "official secrets pursuant to the above law" includes not only the matters specified as such by the law or artificially as well as those classified as secrets according to the due diligence, economic, military, diplomatic, diplomatic, or social needs, but also the matters of considerable interest that the public official is not objectively known from an objective point of view. The term "public official secrets pursuant to the law" refers to the ethical nature of the public official who is responsible for his/her duty to observe in the course of performing his/her duties as a civil servant of the State, is fair in performing his/her duties, and is related to the special power relation, and further, it is interpreted as a natural interpretation by the justification, necessity, etc. of the modern society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Do127, Jul. 28, 198).

(B) Whether the crime of divulgence of official secrets is established

1) According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the defendant was 1 to have a CD on July 3, 2004. At the time of the complaint, the defendant was able to ask the victim to the effect that he would directly take charge of the case upon receipt of the complaint, whether he would deny the confession, such as evidence, etc. The defendant would be 1 to have a flusium after checking what he was admitted as evidence upon receipt of the complaint. The defendant was 1 to have a flusium 2 to have a flusium 0 to have a flusium 1 to have a flusium 0 to have a flusium 4 to have a flusium flusium 6 to have a flusium 6 to have a flusium 0 to have a flusium 6 to have a flusium 6 to have a flusium 6 to have a flusium 1 to have a flusium flusium 2 to have a flusium.

2) The Defendant alleged in the trial that the instant secret disclosed by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a secret on duty under the law. However, as seen earlier, in a criminal complaint case, the existence and submission of direct evidence such as a CD that photographs of passbook face-to-face in a criminal complaint case is likely to deny the criminal act by virtue of the type and probative value of evidence submitted, if the facts are leaked to the suspect of the instant case, or cause the suspect to attempt to destroy relevant evidence, to destroy relevant evidence, or to alter and alter the disclosed facts, and if the general public becomes aware of the disclosed facts, such as the complainants, etc., it interferes with the purpose of the investigation by a State agency, such as falling the people’s confidence in the enforcement of the strict law by the State agency and impeding the function of the investigation.

As a matter that can be used, it shall be defined as a confidential matter in the related laws and regulations.

However, information on evidence submitted in a criminal case as stated in its reasoning is practically confidential, so it is reasonable to deem that the disclosure of information by seeking the benefit of a specific person constitutes a crime of divulgence of official secrets under Article 127 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the crime of divulgence of official secrets or by misapprehending its interpretation, and thus, the head of the defendant's state as to this part is without merit (the defendant, on the other hand, submitted a CD, which is evidence of the case of this case).

Even if the facts were known to the victim, it is argued that the result of cooperation with the investigation by the victim Dogg, such as the confession, etc., did not cause interference with or interference with the investigation. However, as seen earlier, this is merely a unilateral assertion that the situation that the defendant believed that the above CD was not submitted on September 7, 2004 by informing the victim of the fact that it was not submitted, resulting in the defendant's belief that there was no direct evidence as to the correspondence facts, thereby denying the crime from the police investigation thereafter, thereby hindering the investigation. Therefore, this cannot be accepted).

B. Determination of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of the contents and circumstances of the instant crime, the means and method, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and other matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, such as the disclosure of confidential information, which a police officer learned in the course of performing his/her duties, to a person under a criminal case, and the poor nature of the instant crime committed in the course of indecent act by compulsion of a suspect by taking advantage of his/her position, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is deemed appropriate even in view of the circumstances of the Defendant’s internal decision.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Mancy