(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.18 2017고단1600

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.18 2017고단1600

준강제추행

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of C in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D (V, 29 years old) is the shareholder of the above company.

On August 18, 2016, the Defendant, as “F” in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul on August 23:4, 2016, performed drinking together with the victim, the foregoing company unit G, etc., and when the victim, who was seated on the side of the Defendant, was unable to properly see his mind, committed an indecent act against the victim by using the victim’s mental and physical loss or resistance impossibility.

2. Determination

(a) the defendant and the victim as well as the above person;

H makes a statement that it cannot be memoryd at the time of the Defendant’s indecent act, and the primary evidence of the facts charged is a video file stored in CCTV video CD (hereinafter “the video file of this case”).

However, the video file of this case was reproduced by the victim of the original video file, which was taken on CCTV of the above party, from the owner of the business, and was in possession of it to the USB, and then duplicating the video in order for the victim to submit only the part where the indecent act is committed among the images of the duplicate file upon complaint of the defendant.

B. Where a video file contained in a digital storage medium has been reproduced, etc., the admissibility of evidence may not be recognized if the requirement of “identification and integrity” is required in order to recognize the admissibility thereof, and the digital evidence fails to meet such requirements.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the video file of this case was proved to be in integrity or identity.

As such, it cannot be viewed as evidence, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

1. The injured party is only entitled to copy the original video files from the proprietor of the said party to the USB.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.09 2018노1056

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016고단4804

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.4.25. 선고 2013고합805 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노1159

-수원지방법원 2018.10.19 2017노8066