logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.06.27 2014고합162
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Victim F (F), located in Gwangju Mine-gu, 05:00, (b) stated that the Victim F (F) was “I would see that I would have ever come to her. I would see. I would see that I would she would see. I would see. I would see that I would see her, and the victim prevented her from doing so, while holding her hand out of the canter, her hand her hand over her her panty and panty, and her her son her son her hand over her hand over at the same place on March 16, 2014; (c) stated 20,00 won to the victim at the same place on March 16, 2014; (d) stated the victim into the canter and forced her to do so within the canter; and (d) she forced her to do an indecent act with her hand over her hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Any statement made by the defendant in compliance with this Act;

1. Statement made in conformity with the F's statement prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;

1. Application of the video-related Acts and subordinate statutes appropriate therefor, among field photographs;

1. Article 7 (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and Article 298 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The main sentence of Article 21 (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

1. There is no history of punishment for a sex offense by the Defendant under the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and there is no evidence to deem the instant crime as the habituality of sexual assault, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s family relationship with him/her is highly likely to recommit a sexual crime, solely with the intent of committing

arrow