logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2017.07.06 2017노56
강제추행
Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the claimant for observation order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal is the defendant and the requester for the observation order to be protected (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants").

In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of the fact that the defendant gets the victim from behind the victim, etc., and admitting the fact that the chest of the victim was delivered once by hand. However, while walking at the time under the influence of alcohol, the defendant was informed of the victim in the course of trying to go off against the victim, and there was no intention to commit an indecent act against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing of the prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below's improper exemption from disclosure and notification order is unfair to exempt the defendant from disclosure and notification order.

Since it is unfair for the court below to dismiss the request for the order to observe the protection, it is unfair that the court below dismissed the request for the order to observe the protection of this case on the ground of this.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the part of the case by the lower court, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged

① The Defendant is a man of the 20 major group, and the victim is a female of the 30 major group, and the two persons are not aware of each other.

The Defendant, after drinking the post-school marriage and drinking, was her in her house and was in the military. The victim was currently waiting for a taxi together with the workplace E in order to return home after drinking with the workplace rent and drinking.

(2) The injured party shall immediately take place.

arrow