logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.11.09 2016고단1348
강제추행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 21:52 on February 10, 2016, the Defendant discovered the victim E (the 19 years old) who fluencing fluor and drinking on a different table, and performed a conversation with the victim E (the 19 years old), who flusing fluor and drinking on a different table, and fluoring on the victim's right side with the victim's table, she was fluoring on the victim's hand, and she was fluoring on the victim's hand, and she was fluoring on the victim's right side, and she was fluoring on the victim's right side.

The indictment did not specify the defendant's hand, but did not specify the defendant's hand. However, according to ① the seat seat of the defendant and the victim, ② the prosecutor's office and the court's statement in the victim, ③ CCTV images, etc., the defendant appears to have taken advantage of his left hand, and thus, the defendant's hand and buckbucks are recognized ex officio to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant'

Accordingly, the defendant committed indecent acts by force against the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. CCTV video image (the defendant denies criminal facts, but ① a relatively consistent and detailed statement on the victim's background and process (the victim stated at the police investigation stage that the victim's hand was involved in the victim's hand and buckbucks, but the prosecutor's investigation and this court changed the defendant's statement that the defendant left hand.

In light of the fact that the defendant was seated at the right side of the victim at the time of the instant case, it is natural to leave the victim's hand and buckbucks by the defendant's hand.

Nevertheless, it seems that there was no question about this part in the police investigation process, and there is room for the victim to have made a statement by wrong specification of the defendant's hand by mistake.

With the exception of this part, the victim's statement is consistent and specific as a whole, and the above alone.

arrow