beta
Cases
2015Do5255 (A) Indecent act by force of soldiers, etc.
(b) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes;
Indecent Acts by force, etc.
Defendant
A person shall be appointed.
Appellant
Defendant and Military Prosecutor
Defense Counsel
Law Firm (LLC) B
Attorney C, D, and E
Attorney F
Judgment of the lower court
High Court for Armed Forces Decision 2015No48 Decided March 31, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
February 28, 2018
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is acceptable to have determined that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of indecent act by force against the victim G among the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the part on acquittal of the reasoning). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of assault or intimidation,
2. As to the grounds of appeal by the military prosecutor
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below was just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the victim H on the ground that there was no proof of the crime in relation to the charge of indecent act by the military personnel, etc. against the victim H among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that it did not constitute a crime. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles
Meanwhile, the military prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below (including the acquittal portion of the reasoning). However, there is no indication in the petition of appeal on the grounds of appeal nor can it be viewed that there is no statement in the appellate brief on the grounds of objection.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-young
Justices Ko Young-han
Justices Kim Gin-young
Justices Kwon Soon-il
Justices Cho Jae-chul