강제추행
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the part of the victim, and the Defendant did not have a buckbuck and her mack in the process of being drunk in the middle of a buck, and the Defendant did not have the victim’s bucks and her mack, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (2 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in sexual assault treatment programs) of the lower court exempted the Defendant from the disclosure notification order, in the absence of special circumstances that would not give notice of the Defendant’s personal information to the public. This is unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court was clearly erroneous.
Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, or considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2007Do2020, May 11, 2007; 2009Do1409, Feb. 25, 2010). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s appeal and the victim’s second instance judgment were naturally and naturally accepted and investigated by evidence, such as the victim’s statement and the victim’s testimony, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the distance between the victim and the victim.