(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.05 2018노1416 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.05 2018노1416

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(업무상위력등에의한추행)등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by occupational force as stated in the facts charged, or committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim through personal contact through improper force to the extent that the body of the person committing an indecent act is assessed as an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant charges on the grounds that “The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, committed an indecent act by force against the victim’s will, or committed an indecent act by exercising force to the extent that it could be evaluated as an assault, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.”

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In addition, there was any physical contact between the Defendant and the victim.

Even in light of the circumstances duly determined by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant committed an indecent act by exercising the victim’s physical force to the extent that the victim could not actually resist the situation.

In addition, it is difficult to see that there is an error of mistake of fact as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, among the judgment below, "the defendant of the 18th act" of the 4th party and 4th party 21 act.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.01.10 2017노138

-인천지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노5319

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노980

-수원지방법원 2017.05.29 2016노8955

-대구지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노2202