beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.22 2019노1701

강제추행

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The defendant, who had been suffering from the victim E's mind in the unmanned telecom, was merely blicking the victim's face as blick with both hands, and the defendant did not intend to commit an indecent act against the victims in order to look at the victim's hand with the thickness in advance.

B) In addition, without accompanying assault and intimidation, only the above physical contact was made, and even in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the part and degree of physical contact, and the response of the victims, etc., it is difficult to view that the victims caused a sense of sexual shame or infringed on the freedom of sexual self-determination, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim caused a sense of sexual shame or infringed on the freedom of sexual self-determination, and therefore, it does not constitute a indecent act by compulsion under the Criminal Act. (C) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the victims of each of the facts charged in this case, which believed only the statements of the victims suspected of credibility as they

2) Unless there is an unfair sentencing order, the Defendant works in good faith as a police officer for a long time. Considering the fact that the Defendant was subject to heavy disciplinary action on the ground of the instant crime, and the motive for the instant crime or the degree of indecent act, etc., the Defendant’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of an order to attend sexual assault treatment courses) is too unreasonable. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s (the vice head of the district police station, which is likely to have an impact on the victims’ personnel management or evaluation, by taking advantage of the circumstance that the Defendant, as the vice head of the district police station, could not easily refuse or challenge his request, against the victims who worked in the status of probation at the same district.

참조조문