성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The victims of the main text of paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged were specified as “C” even though they were specified as “B,” and the victims of the main text of paragraph (1) of the instant indictment No. 3 were specified as “C,” but the victims of the main text of paragraph (1) of the instant indictment No. 3 were specified as “B,” and the victims of the crime list No. 2 of the crime list No. 3 of the instant case were specified as “B,” while the victims of the main text of paragraph (3)-B of the instant indictment were specified as “B,” the victims of Table 3 of the
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged without immediately reporting the above error through the amendment of indictment, etc.
2) The offense of insult is subject to victim’s complaint, where the victim withdraws the complaint before the first instance judgment is rendered, the prosecution should be dismissed as a judgment.
However, on March 17, 2020, the court below found Defendant guilty of the offense of insult 3-A, No. 3-A of the instant facts charged, even though the victim C submitted to the court of the original instance a written agreement and a written application for non-prosecution of punishment, and clearly expressed his/her intent to revoke the complaint against the Defendant.
3) In relation to Article 4-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., the Defendant sent obscene images as indicated in Article 44-7(1)2 of the instant facts charged to one party to his name in the form that it is impossible for the Defendant to download or cut off the obscene images as indicated in Article 44-7(2) of the instant facts charged. However, the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged due to misunderstanding of the legal doctrine regarding the legal meaning of “distribution”.
4) With regard to Article 3 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was merely engaged in an insulting speech to the victims in an closed cyber space between the Defendant and one other party in the name of the Defendant, and the other party to the conversation inserted in a brupt between the Defendant and the Defendant and made a low sexual dialogue again.