logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.18 2015노552
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등추행)등
Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

The defendant above.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the following respect: (a) In the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 1 guilty of all the facts charged of this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; (b) as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below that found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the Defendant only taken charge of the shoulder of the victim in order to attract the rest of the victims who were not asked questions by asking questions, and did not have the intention of indecent act; and (c) there is no fact that the Defendant has taken charge of harming the finger on the chest part of the victim

또한 피고인이 피해자의 의자 옆에 쭈그리고 앉아 피해자의 질문에 관해 설명하면서 균형을 잡기 위하여 의자를 잡는 과정에서 본의 아니게 피고인의 새끼손가락이 피해자의 허벅지에 닿은 것일 뿐 추행의 의사가 없었고, 피해자의 오른 다리 아래까지 손을 집어 넣은 다음 피해자의 오른쪽 허벅지 위에 손을 얹고 허벅지를 만진 사실이 없다.

B) As to the crime No. 2 of the holding, the Defendant merely moved a student seated on the right side of the victim to another place in order to restrain him from taking lessons from the victim’s class, and did not have any physical contact with the victim. 2) The sentence (2) imposed by the lower court on the allegation of unfair sentencing (2) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The part of the Defendant’s case (a two-dimensional assertion) that was sentenced by the lower court is unreasonable, as it is too unfilled and unreasonable. 2) Even though the Defendant’s risk of recommitting a sexual crime, it is unreasonable to sentence the Defendant to a fine and dismiss the Defendant’s request for the attachment order

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court’s determination on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine.

arrow