beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.29 2019노677

강제추행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not look at the victim’s chest. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the basis of the victim’s statement, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 21, 2018, around 03:00 on July 21, 2018, the Defendant: (a) followed the victim C (n, 22 years of age) who was a congested by the Defendant, and (b) followed up the victim C (n, 22 years of age); (c) followed up, and (d) followed up, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force by force, by taking the victim’s left chest of the victim, who is considered to be obsible by obscing

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim by limiting the victim’s left chest as stated in the facts charged by taking account of the evidence in its holding.

C. According to the records of the trial court, the victim stated consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that he was aware of his chest.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement to the effect that the Defendant was delivered his chest is difficult, and the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an indecent act on the victim’s chest, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

(1) The Defendant consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of first instance to the effect that there is no fact that the victim's chest was delivered. In addition to the victim's statement, the Defendant may be deemed to have committed an indecent act against the victim.