logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.10.07 2020고단836
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적다중이용장소침입)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. No person shall intrude into any place used by many and unspecified persons, such as toilets, or comply with a request to leave the same place for the purpose of meeting his/her sexual desire, in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

Nevertheless, at around 11:51 on August 4, 2020, the Defendant entered the front Mawon-si B underground space No. 1, No. 5 of the escape-gu women-only toilets of the exit-gu No. 1, and intruded into the public use site by no later than 12:17 on the same day.

2. No person shall photograph the body of a person against the will of the person subject to filming, using a camera or any other mechanical device similar thereto, which violates the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "camer, etc.");

Nevertheless, at around 12:12 on August 4, 2020, the Defendant tried to take the image of the victim C, who entered the side partitions of the above toilets No. 5, by carrying out the camera function of his mobile phone, in order to take a meltion of the meltion. However, the Defendant attempted to take the meltion of the victim by carrying out the camera function of his mobile phone, but the Defendant attempted to have attempted to take the meltion of the victim before seeing the meltion.

In this regard, the defendant saw that he did drinking, entered a female toilet, and did not enter a female toilet in order to satisfy sexual desire.

However, a male defendant's admission into a female toilet and photographs a victim in side partitionss, unlike the defendant's statement in an investigative agency, they appear to have been 20 minutes or more in the above toilet, and the time when the defendant entered the above toilet is 11:00 am, and the defendant asserts that a toilet was inter-brupted in order to see urines, whereas a male urine is used.

arrow