(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노1467 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노1467

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. In other words, the Defendant did not threaten the victim D on or around January 10, 2016 and around April 10, 2016. In particular, around April 10, 2016, the Defendant’s intimidation constitutes an act involving punishment, and thus, constitutes a separate crime of intimidation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and thereby erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of intimidation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The Defendant, in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using a camera, etc.), was stolen from visibility at home and installed a home CCTV after the scam, not installed for the purpose of photographing the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim also knew of the fact that the CCTV was installed at the Defendant’s home, and thus cannot be deemed to have had the intent to photograph or taken against the victim’s will.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using camera, etc.) and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

(3) The Defendant’s cell phone of confinement did not contain a dynamic image on which the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim was taken, and even if the Defendant displayed the victim’s sexual dynamic image stored in the cell phone and deducted the victim’s cell phone to be reported in 112.

Even though there was no separate locking device on the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim was fully aware of the fact that he could open a door physically at the time, the Defendant had a conversation with the Defendant without leaving the vehicle. There was no fact that the Defendant had detained the victim, and there was no intention to detain the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

참조조문

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016노7890

-수원지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노6048

-수원지방법원 2015.09.22 2015노3932

-수원지방법원 2016.10.27 2016노5798

-수원지방법원 2016.12.01 2016노5321