강제추행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The facts charged that the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case and sentenced the defendant to a punishment of eight months imprisonment are as follows.
On September 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) told the victim E (the age of 35) who became aware of through his own "D Real Estate Establishment Act", which he operated, of which he had been drank by telephone; and (b) told the victim to commit indecent act by compulsion.
At around 05:00 on September 20, 2015, the Defendant found the victim’s residence to be a doping to attach a counter-ware to the victim’s multi-child hand, and had the victim talked about four times with the victim’s left hand during the conversation with the victim on the victim’s whether he/she is a new baby, and he/she committed an indecent act by coercioning the victim by inserting his/her son into the victim’s clothes, by putting him/her into his/her clothes, and her knbbbbbbbs.
2. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below
A. (1) The gist of the Reasons for Appeal is that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged of this case, and the Defendant did not appear at the site of this case on the ground that he did not drink the victim at a different place along with his figures.
Even based on objective evidence, such as the Defendant’s taxi credit card settlement details, the currency details with the victim, and the credit card settlement details at convenience stores, the fact that the Defendant did not visit the victim’s residence at the time stated in the facts charged and stay therein is apparent.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Shebly, even if the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months) is too excessive and unfair.
B. The Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts.
However, the court below held the victim's testimony.