logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.03 2018노3495
준강제추행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to satisfy the sexual desire, the Defendant, not to be exempted from the clothes of the victim, but to see that the victim’s respiratory is unstable and was satisfyed by himself/herself so that he/she could easily satisfy because he/she did not have any satisfy, he/she exceeded the victim’s clothes, and she did not constitute an indecent act, on the ground that she had no intention to commit quasi-decent act.

B. Even if the judgment of the court below was found guilty of unfair sentencing, the punishment (the fine of 5 million won, the order to complete a program 40 hours, the employment restriction order 1 year) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the fluority and brue, the fladation of brue by a male during the period under influence of alcohol constitutes an act of causing sexual humiliation to ordinary adult women by objectively viewing that it constitutes an act of causing sexual humiliation; (b) in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim at that time, the victim also fell under the circumstances sufficient to feel sexual humiliation; (c) the Defendant did not feel sexual humiliation; and (d) the Defendant appears to have the ability to sufficiently take into account how the above act is generally accepted by the adult; and (b) the lower court’s aforementioned act constitutes an indecent act; and (c) determined that there was an intentional indecent act by quasi-indecent act. 2) If it appears that the lower court’s judgment and the first instance court’s evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s finding of facts is justifiable and there is a conviction in the charges of appeal.

arrow