Defendant 1 and two others

Courtrooms (prosecutions) and courtrooms (public trial)

Attorneys Han Han-woo et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,00,000, and a fine of KRW 5,000,000, respectively.

When Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours each.

Defendant 3 is not guilty.

A summary of the judgment against Defendant 3 shall be publicly announced.

1. Defendant 1

피고인 1은 2018. 6. 22. 15:30경 경주시 (주소 생략) △△△골프클럽 힐 코스 3번 홀에서 캐디인 피해자 공소외 3(여, 27세)에게 “이게 만지는 거가?”라고 말하면서 왼손으로 피해자의 오른쪽 어깨를 톡톡 치는 방법으로 만져 강제추행하였다.

2. Defendant 2

피고인 2는 2018. 6. 22. 16:00경부터 19:30경까지 사이에 위 제1항 기재 골프클럽 힐 코스 6번 홀부터 레이크 코스 9번 홀에 이르기까지 “네가 이상형이다. 니 같이 작고 가벼운 애들이 들어서 하기 좋다. □□ 와서 만나자. 필리핀에 같이 가자. 내 이름은 괜히 성기가 아니다.”라는 등의 성적인 말을 하면서 수회에 걸쳐 양손으로 골프채를 건네주는 피해자의 양손을 잡아 놓아주지 않는 방법으로 만져 강제추행하였다.

1. Statement of Defendants 1 and 2 in the first trial record;

1. The defendant 2's legal statement (limited to the defendant 1);

1. Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 1’s each legal statement

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2

1. Some of the police statements and prosecutor's protocol on Nonindicted 3

1. Part of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 2

1. Complaint;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: each Criminal Code Article 298 (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Order to complete programs;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: The main sentence of Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. To exempt the public disclosure order, notification order and employment restriction order;

In light of Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, 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, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018); the proviso to Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018); in light of the age, occupation, and social relationship of the above Defendants, it appears that the registration of personal information on the said Defendants and the completion of sexual assault treatment programs alone could prevent recidivism of the said Defendants, it is determined that the said Defendants’ personal information should not be disclosed or notified or ordered.

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive on each crime in the judgment, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 are subject to registration of personal information in accordance with Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and they are obligated to submit personal information to the competent agency in accordance with Article 43 of the same Act.

1. Summary of the assertion

In order to explain the fact that the Defendant, while making a talk about “competing”, may be a minor contact with others in light of the thalthm attitude, he merely caused the shoulder of the victim by hand, and did not have an intention to commit an indecent act against the victim.

2. Determination

The crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only the case where an indecent act is committed after the other party makes it difficult to resist by resorting to violence or intimidation, but also the case where the act of assault itself is deemed an indecent act. In such a case, assault is not necessarily required to suppress the other party’s intent. An indecent act refers to an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes an indecent act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of conduct, objective situation, sexual morality, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, Sept. 10, 2015, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the court's lawful adoption and examination of the circumstances revealed as follows: ① as Defendant 1, a customer of the golf course at the time of the instant case, was aware that Defendant 1, a customer of the golf course, committed an act like the crime of assaulting the victim's body against the victim's sexual freedom at the first age of 27 years of age, with the victim's appearance evaluation, and talking about the "meat?" during the crime of assaulting the victim's shoulder is objectively an act of causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public; and actually, the victim's shoulder was said to be an act of causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public; ② the victim's voice was called as "indecent act infringing on the victim's sexual freedom; ② Defendant 1 was aware that the victim's body was limited to the victim's body against the victim's will; ③ Defendant 1's act of assaulting the victim's body constitutes an indecent act by compulsion, not the victim's body's act of indecent act.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1) Grounds for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than 15 million won by fine; and

2. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant 1: Fines of two million won;

The Defendant, contrary to the intention of the victim who is a golf club glone, committed an indecent act by deceiving the victim’s right shoulder with his left hand, is not good. As a result, the Defendant appears to have caused the victim to feel mental shock and sexual humiliation. The Defendant did not have been able to take advantage of the victim.

However, the body part of the victim who was committed by the defendant is broken and the degree of the type or indecent act that the defendant has exercised is not much serious. There are no other records of punishment or a fine imposed on the defendant for sexual crimes. In addition, the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and the punishment shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act,

(b) Defendant 2: Fines of five million won;

The Defendant, by taking advantage of the situation in which the victim, who is a golf gld victim, actively expresses his/her intention to refuse to the Defendant, was aware that he/she would feel sexual humiliation, and was flicking the victim’s humbling of golf loans by hand against the victim’s will, and the crime is bad. Accordingly, the victim seems to have caused a large mental shock and sexual humiliation.

However, the Defendant has become aware of his mistake and is against the law. The Defendant agreed with the victim to have the victim punished for a sexual crime. The Defendant does not have any record of being subject to punishment or heavier punishment than a fine. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions stipulated under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1 are the customers of △△ golf clubs, and the victims Nonindicted Party 3 (Influence, 27 years old) are glick.

On June 22, 2018, at around 15:30 on June 22, 2018, the Defendants were able to commit an indecent act with Nonindicted Party 1, and around 15:30 on June 22, 2018, the victim glurddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

계속해서 피고인들은 공소외 1과 함께 같은 날 16:00경 위 골프클럽의 힐 코스 6번 홀부터 같은 날 19:30경 위 골프클럽의 레이크 코스 9번 홀에 이르기까지 피고인 2는 “네가 이상형이다. 니 같이 작고 가벼운 애들이 들어서 하기 좋다. □□ 와서 만나자. 필리핀에 같이 가자. 내 이름은 괜히 성기가 아니다.”라는 등의 성적인 말을 하면서 매 홀마다 골프채를 건네주는 피해자의 손을 잡아 놓아주지 않고 자신의 몸 쪽으로 끌어당기고, 피고인 1 등은 피해자에게 “피고인 2가 니가 진짜 마음에 들었는갑다. 연락처 줘봐라.”라고 말하며 부추기고, 피고인 3은 “피고인 2가 돈이 많은 사람이다. 니한테 꼽혔다. 힘도 좋다.”라고 말하였으며, 공소외 1은 “좋겠다, 너는.”이라며 “니 나이가 관계하기 딱 좋다.”며 운전석에 앉아 있는 피해자에게 자신의 몸을 들이대었고, 피해자가 싫은 내색을 보이자 “골프장에서 대접받는 사람이고, 위치가 있는 사람이다. VIP다. 똑바로 해라. 기분 안 좋은 티내지 마라.”라고 하며 위세를 보였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants committed an indecent act by force against the victim in collaboration with Nonindicted 1.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① from the investigative agency to the court of this case, the victim told Nonindicted 2, who was the victim, to this effect: (a) from the investigation agency to the court of this case, the victim met both her shoulder with his own shoulder; and (b) from the victim to the victim, the victim and Nonindicted 1 met with the victim at once again, and the other Defendants were in charge of her shouldered. Defendant 2 met with each hole from the 6th century to the 9th century to the 1st century. Defendant 2 met the hand hand of his hand to the effect that she did not her hand, and she contacted her body. The victim stated that “after the date of this case’s arrival, the victim told Nonindicted 2, who was the solar, and immediately after the date of this case’s arrival, the victim and the victim did not have the right to file a criminal complaint, and that the victim did not have the right to file a criminal complaint as stated in the facts charged at the time of this case.”

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted earlier, it is difficult to find that the Defendants, in combination with Nonindicted 1, took the victim’s shoulder by her hand, and Defendant 2 was forced to commit indecent act by force without putting the victim’s hand to her body and by drawing the victim’s hand to her body during each hole from 6 A.S. to 9 A.S.C. 3, 200, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) With respect to the details of the damage inflicted on this part of the facts charged, the victim stated in the investigative agency and this court as follows.

A) On June 28, 2018, on the day when the victim reported the damage to the police, the victim stated “I am inside the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.”

나) 피해자는 2018. 6. 28. 경찰 1회 조사에서 “2018. 6. 22. 15:30경 힐 코스 3번 홀 앞에 갔는데 앞 팀이 티샷을 하고 있어서 카트 시동을 끄고 카트에서 기다리고 있었다. 대기하던 중 피고인들과 공소외 1이 여자랑 섹스를 하는 얘기, 골프장 캐디는 예쁘다, 어린 여자들이랑 애인관계에 있다는 얘기를 들으라는 듯이 하였다. 그러던 중 피고인 1이 갑자기 자신의 어깨를 주무르면서 미투에 대한 이야기를 하였다. 그러면서 ‘이게 만지는 거가?’라고 해서 ‘손을 대는 것이 당연히 만지는 거지 만지는 거 아닙니까. 하지 마세요.’라고 하였으나 다른 사람들도 재미있다는 듯이 모두 자신의 어깨를 만졌다. 피고인 1과 공소외 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3이 순서대로 만졌다. 카트 제일 앞에 자신이, 자신의 오른쪽에 공소외 1이, 자신의 바로 뒤에 피고인 1이, 피고인 1의 오른쪽에 피고인 3이 앉아 있었다. 피고인 2는 카트에서 내려서 자신의 바로 옆쪽에 서 있었다. 피고인 1이 먼저 시작했고 공소외 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3이 순차적으로 양손으로 자신의 양 어깨를 기분 나쁘게 주무르듯이 만졌다. 5분 정도 만진 것 같다. 3번 홀 티샷을 하고 있던 앞 팀은 200m 떨어진 거리라서 볼 수 없었다. 피고인 2가 자신의 손을 잡은 것 외에 다른 사람은 어깨 만진 것이 전부이다. 피고인 2는 같은 날 16:00경부터 라운딩이 끝난 19:30경까지 힐 코스 6번 홀부터 레이크 코스 9번 홀이 끝날 때까지 계속 손을 만졌다. 매 홀 클럽을 바꿔줄 때마다 손을 잡아서 놓아주지 않았다. 자신이 그립을 두 손으로 잡고 피고인 2에게 내밀면 피고인 2가 양손으로 자신의 양손을 감싸듯이 잡고 손을 놓지 않았고 손을 잡은 채로 몸 쪽으로 당기기도 하였다. 10초 정도 계속 손을 놓지 않고 잡고 있었다. 6번 홀 이후부터는 매 홀마다 그랬고, 보통 한 홀에 3~4번 정도 클럽을 바꾸니 대략 36회 이상이다. 다른 일행들은 ‘다 니 좋아서 저러는 거 아니가.’라면서 부추겼다. 피고인 2가 자신에게 작업을 걸려고 하면 다른 일행들은 옆으로 슬쩍 가면서 자리를 피해주기도 하였다. 다른 일행들도 피고인 2의 행동을 다 보았다.”라고 진술하였다.

C) On July 27, 2018, at the police investigation, Nonindicted Party 1 was seated on the driver’s seat of the Kaart, and Defendant 2 was seated on the right side of her own, and Defendant 1 was seated on the top of her left part. Nonindicted Party 1 was flicked on the top of her flick. Defendant 1 was flicked, flicked, flicked, flicked, and flicked, and flicked, Defendant 1 was flicked, and flicked, flicked, flicked, and flicked, Defendant 1 was flicked, and flicked, Defendant 2 was flick at one’s own seat, and Defendant 3 was flick, and Defendant 3 was flick, one’s own seat.

D) In this Court, the victim, “I am on June 2, 2018, and I am on the driver’s seat, I am on his own, I am on his own, and I am on his next side, and Defendant 3. Defendant 2 was on his own shoulder while I am on the part of I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am on the part of I am. I am. I am......

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, the victim’s statement to the effect that “Defendant 1, who was seated at the back of the cart driver’s seat in the CY 3 MY 3, she was placed in both hands, and that Nonindicted 1 and the Defendants, other than the Defendant 1, are able to get off both the victim’s shoulder in the following order: (a) Defendant 2 did not put his hand about about about about about 10 seconds for each hole from 6 am to 9 am in the CY 3, or 36 times in the body of Defendant 2, it is difficult to believe that this part of the facts charged is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.”

A) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1, who had been aware of 30 years from the same post in the same post office, and Nonindicted 1 was the president of the Dog Chamber from around 2009 to around 2015. At the time, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 became aware of each other while becoming members of the Dog Chamber at the time. Defendant 3 was replaced by Nonindicted 1’s driver before several years from the high birth of Nonindicted 1, and on the day of the instant case, Defendant 3 was driving the vehicle of Nonindicted 1, who was suffering from suffering from urology in the golf course. Defendant 1 called “Defendant 1, 3,” “Defendant 1 and Defendant 2,” and “Defendant 1 and Defendant 2,” called “Defendant 1 and Defendant 5,” called “Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, Defendant 2,” and “Defendant 1, Defendant 5 and Defendant 5,” respectively.

B) The victim stated from the investigative agency to this court that “I am on the driver’s seat in the front of the He / she, Nonindicted 1, Defendant 3 on the back of the front of the He / she, and Defendant 2 on the left side.” In this court, Defendant 3 stated that “I am on the left side of her own. I am on the front of the He / she am. I am on the front of the He / she am. I am on the front of the He am. I am on the front of the He am. I am on the front of the He am. I am on the front of the He am. I am well am on the front of the He am. I am on the front of the He am. I am. I am on the front of the He am. I am on the front of his am. I am on the front of his am.”

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted earlier, i.e., ① the Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1 consistently testified from the investigative agency to the present court that Defendant 1 continued to sit on the front line (the charge of crimes against Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendants was changed to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special indecent act by force) in the course of indecent act by force on August 10, 2018 (the 142 pages of the investigation record), and it is difficult to view that the Defendants were able to make a false statement in advance to escape from their respective indecent acts by force on the part of the Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1. In light of the relationship between the above Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 were a member of the chamber of commerce and industry, and that Defendant 1 was unaware of the victim’s age from 30 years to 30 years, and that it was difficult for the Defendants 1 and the Defendants 1 were aware of the victim’s age.

C) With respect to the order of their shoulder, the victim and Nonindicted 1 stated in the police first investigation that “the Defendant 1 first started shoulder, and the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 met their shoulder successively (13 pages of the investigation record),” and in the process of the second investigation of the police, the victim stated that “the Defendants 1 got shoulder and her shoulder both in two hands, and the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 appeared to have taken charge of the two shoulders, respectively, and the victim started to her shoulder up to 5, respectively, and the victim stated that “the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and the Defendant 3 did not know of the fact that the Defendant 6 was 5,00,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

In addition, in this court, the victim changed the victim's statement to Defendant 1 "Imanman?" to Defendant 1 "Imanman????" The victim's statement to Defendant 2 "Imanman????? The victim's statement not only changed the victim's statement to the same effect as "Imanman????? I do not accurately associate with Defendant 2????? I do not agree with the victim's statements in light of the relationship between the above Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1, it is difficult to accept even in the above case.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is difficult for the victim, other than the defendant 1, to believe the victim's above statement that the defendants other than the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 stated that the victim's shoulder was spreaded, as it is, is difficult to believe that the victim's shouldered.

D) Nonindicted 2, who is a solar, stated that “The victim first stated that “I am sexual harassment??” Defendant 1’s left shoulder, and “I am sexual harassment???” and the victim stated that “I am sexual harassment??” and “I am sexual harassment? I am see how I am sexual harassment? I am the victim’s shoulder in both hands, and 4 became only four (11,23-24,27).” (The previous statement is different from the victim’s statement that “I am the victim’s shoulder in both hands. I am the victim’s shoulder.”

E) The victim stated in the complaint that “the four son was frighten and attempted to do so.” However, in the first investigation by the police, the victim stated that “other persons than Defendant 2 was frighten.” (the 15th page of the investigation record), and in the second investigation of the police, the victim stated that “the victim was frighten and fright, who was not frighten, and was frighten and fright, who was frighten and frighten, who was frighten and frighted.” (the 127th page of the investigation record), the victim stated that “The victim was frighten and frighten, who was frighten and frighten, who was not frighten and frighten, who was frighten and frighten, who was frightd by the victim.” However, the victim did not have any other fright and fright, who was frightd by the victim.”

F) (1) The victim stated in the investigative agency and this court that “The defendant and non-indicted 1 are in charge of his shouldered about 5 minutes, and Defendant 2 did not take his hand over about 10 seconds each time he gets golf loans from each hole from 6 A.M. 6 to 9 A.M., to each hole. The number of his hand-takes was about 36 times.” However, the victim stated in this court that “it was almost little hands over even if the defendant 2 was not neglected, it was about 36 times.” In addition, the victim stated in this court that “if the defendant 2 did not take hand over 36 times or more every hole, or if the behavior was repeated toward the body of the defendant 2 towards the body of the defendant 2, the victim was about 14 hours during which the golf game was conducted, and the victim was about 4 hours during which the victim made the average statement was made.”

(2) During the first investigation process by the police, the victim stated that “The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 shall have a strong shoulder for about five minutes” (which is the 13th page of the investigation record), but changed the statement that “the strong shoulder is not about five minutes” in this court (which is the 36th page of the record).

(3) 피해자는 경찰 1차 조사과정에서 “힐 코스 3번 홀 대기 중에 앞 팀은 티샷을 하고 있었고, 앞 팀과의 거리는 200m 정도 되었다.”라고 진술하였다가(수사기록 14쪽), 이 법정에서 “앞 팀과의 거리가 200m까지는 아니고 130m 정도 되었다. 50m까지는 붙어 있지 않았다.”라고 진술하였다(녹취서 25, 85~86쪽, 사건 당시 피해자는 이 사건 골프장에서 2년 반 정도 캐디로 일하던 중이었다). 그러나 이 사건이 발생한 골프장에서 8년간 캐디로 근무한 공소외 2는 “힐 코스 3번 홀의 대기 거리는 앞 팀과 멀어야 40~50m 정도이다.”라는 취지로 진술하고 있다(녹취서 12쪽).

(4) Such circumstances can also be seen as the circumstance supporting the victim’s statement in exaggeration of the damage situation and degree.

3) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find out that the Defendants were unable to engage in an indecent act on the part of Nonindicted Party 2 by committing a crime against the Defendant 1, or by committing an indecent act by force on the part of Nonindicted Party 2, as a subjective requirement, and that such act was in cooperative relation with the victim at time or place (see Supreme Court Decision 204Do2870, Aug. 20, 204). However, it is difficult to find that there was only one of the following circumstances that the Defendants, other than Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, expressed that the Defendants were unable to engage in an indecent act by force on the part of the Defendant 2, on the part of the Defendant 1, because of the following circumstances: (a) there was no possibility that the Defendants were engaged in an indecent act by force on the part of Nonindicted Party 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 3, on the part of Nonindicted Party 2, who stated that they would have committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered on Defendant 3 pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 3 pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is announced: Provided, That the above facts charged against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 include the facts charged in the crime of indecent act by compulsion, and so long as the judgment of conviction is found to be guilty of each indecent act by compulsion

Judges Maximum Sea Day (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-il

Note 1) As a result of the selection of a fine, the sentencing criteria shall not apply.