logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014노4638
공용서류무효등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. According to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the consistent statement of the victim E and the statement of R in the original trial court, etc., the Defendant appears to have entered the toilet when recognizing that the above victim was able to report the meltion in the first floor of the public toilets of the “D” restaurant building (hereinafter “the toilet of this case”). On the other hand, in light of the fact that the Defendant infringed upon the toilet itself, and there is no ground to recognize that the Defendant did not have any sexual intent to protect the above victim who is able to protect the victim, it can be recognized that the Defendant infringed on the toilet of this case with a purpose to satisfy sexual desire.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, thereby acquitted the facts charged.

B. Each of the crimes of this case on unfair sentencing committed by the defendant committed violence, such as her blick, her head debt, etc. by the defendant's blicker, insulting the police officer in receipt of a report, and destroying the back of the patrol police officer by exposing all of five copies of public documents, such as a written confirmation of arrest and detention, which was arrested as a flagrant offender, and then damaged the company where the defendant was only on his duty, her blicker, her blicker, and interfere with the victim's dispatch of 30 minutes within the office in a new state, and thus, the crime is not good in light of the method and circumstances of the crime, and the defendant did not recover from damage, and the defendant's history of punishment for the same kind of crime reaches 14 times and thus high risk of re-offending is high.

arrow