(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노2474 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노2474

강제추행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: Although the Defendant did not have contacted the victim’s body or committed an indecent act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, it was unlawful.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (one year of suspended execution for four months of imprisonment, 80 hours’ community service, and 40 hours’ sexual assault treatment programs) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor (unfair sentencing): The sentence of the lower judgment is too minor.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, ① at the time, the Defendant was suffering from the wave trading box: ② at the investigative agency and the court of original instance, the victim was waiting for a male-child box (F, before the prosecution was instituted, but the victim was waiting for a male-child box (F, before the prosecution was instituted). On the rear side, the victim was able to put his arms into the left chest in the way of a space between the two sides, and the victim was able to walk up to the toilet, and the victim was able to walk up to the toilet, and the victim was able to walk up to the toilet, and the victim was able to look back to the police officer, and the victim stated to the effect that “I am about the past, I I am. I am. I am about the Defendant’s wrong with F, and the Defendant was able to report it to the investigative agency without recognizing the Defendant’s mistake, and that the police officer should return the situation to the police officer’s port again, and that the defendant stated to the same effect as the victim’s statement to the investigation agency.

However, the court of the court below stated that he was not able to see that he was put in the body between the two parts, and that he was not able to see the chest.

4) In the court of the court of the court below, K, the Defendant’s first executive, also stated in the court of the court of the court below that “the Defendant entered the toilet,” and “I am not aware of,”

The victim’s statement stating “the victim stated” is the victim’s statement.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2013.08.13 2013노692

-서울고등법원 2013.07.05 2013노1338

-창원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018고정481

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017고정1043

-수원지방법원 2021.04.22 2020노4133