성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강제추행)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act, such as kneeeing the victim F (maneeek, Gar, hereinafter referred to as “victim”) or having the victim interfere with the Defendant’s sexual organ.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. On the date of the first trial of the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor applied for permission to change the date and time under Paragraph 1 of the facts charged from “ around August 201, 201” to “the name of August 2011,” and this court permitted this.
On the same date, the prosecutor made a statement that “child” in the last sentence of the facts charged is a clerical error in the “minor under the age of 13” and corrected it.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this part can no longer be maintained, and the judgment of the court below on the remaining parts related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be maintained.
B. The Defendant’s defense counsel made a statement to the effect that “There is no objection to the recognition of admissibility of a video recording CD” on the fourth day of the trial of the party. However, even if evidence is admissible, it cannot be admitted as evidence without legitimate evidence. Thus, the Defendant’s defense counsel on the victim’s video recording CD (the document No. 7 of the prosecutor’s submission; hereinafter “instant CD”) is examined ex officio as to the examination of evidence at the court below.
The CD of this case, when the investigative agency was present at the victim I, took the process of the investigation as a video recording device while hearing the victim's statement, and the contents of the victim's statement are the victim's or the investigative process at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial.