beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.27 2016노5798

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

Reasons

The Defendant, in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using a communication medium) by an attorney-at-law, sent C’s photograph to D in order to inform the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant was in a close relationship with C, and did not aim to induce or satisfy himself/herself or another person’s sexual desire.

The Defendant sent C’s photograph taken on October 23, 2015 to D, and the photograph taken on October 31, 2015 did not transmit it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the purpose to arouse or satisfy a sexual desire,” which is the subjective constituent element of the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media), thereby admitting the conviction of all of the facts charged in the instant charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant, in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, sent pictures taken on October 23, 2015 to D, but did not transmit the pictures of C taken on October 31, 2015, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the instant charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On December 27, 2015, the mobile phone message sent by the Defendant to the Victim C around 00:57, there is no provision that “to distribute it to the workplace rent. It would be given to the parents of thener. If you want to have his/her face, I would like to go without face.” In addition, the Defendant did not threaten C by sending the above content.

The defendant is an investigative agency and the original court.