강제추행등
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal: The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) among the facts charged in the instant case shall memory only to the fact that: (a) during the instant case’s act of indecent act committed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “instant charges”), the victim was found and the victim was separated from his wife, and the Defendant was able to drink and watch television; and (b) the next memory was on the part of the victim’s contact; and (c) the victim was frightened with the victim, such as the victim’s statement, and there was no memory as to the fact that the victim went out of the telecom or committed an indecent act by force.
However, the victim's statement is not reliable in light of the following points.
Even after the victim was committed an indecent act on March 14, 2015 and reported on March 16, 2015, the victim had no mentioning that he/she had drinking with the Defendant before he/she was arrested on August 9, 2015, and that he/she was indecent act against the Defendant at the time.
The victim stated to the effect that “the victim was indecent act from the Defendant before the PC, after talking with the Defendant before the PC, and going into the PC.” On the other hand, H made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant, the victim and the victim talked before the PC and moved to the direction of the convenience store, and the victim was in front of the convenience store,” and that “the victim was in front of the convenience store when opening the door of the vehicle and considering the back of the vehicle.” The circumstances of the case explained by H do not coincide with the victim’s statement that “the PC went to the convenience store.”
In other words, the victim did not make a statement about the specific content of the indecent act, i.e., what kind of injury was caused by one hand, what order of time was, how the victim retired from the indecent act, etc., and the police did not make a statement about the credibility of the victim's statement even though the victim did not make a statement in the prosecutor's office or the court, and did not undergo a cross-examination with the defendant.