Defendant

Defendant

Lee Young-young

A public-service advocate's right pen (state line)

Daegu District Court Decision 2011Gohap1 Decided April 29, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) In the absence of evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed an indecent act by assaulting or threatening the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assaulting or threatening the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In relation to the remaining crimes, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant believed only the victim's statement without credibility even though the defendant did not have committed each crime in the judgment of the court below, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts due to erroneous determination of evidence or incomplete hearing, which affected

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) The basic facts

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts or circumstances are recognized:

(1) Since the Defendant and the victim came to know of January 2010, around February 2-3 of the same year, the Defendant and the victim first appeared to have a Madmon for the first time. They first came to have a sexual intercourse on the date of delivery, thereafter, they continued to have a relationship until November 1, 2010, when the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant.

(2) During the process of internal ties, the Defendant and the victim met only once a week and up to 2-3 times a week, and almost every day the Defendant and the victim had a sexual relationship.

(3) 또한 피고인과 피해자는 만나는 동안 별지 ‘문자메시지 내역’을 비롯하여 아래에서 일부 발췌하여 언급하는 것 이외에도 수없이 많은 휴대전화 문자메시지를 서로 주고받았고[문자메시지 내용은 피고인과 피해자의 휴대전화에 저장되어 있거나 삭제된 것을 복원한 것으로서 증거로 제출된 범위 내에서 정리한 것에 불과하다. 문자메시지 내용이나 두 사람 사이의 관계 및 통화내역 조회(증거기록 350쪽 이하) 등에 비추어 두 사람은 증거로 제출되어 확인할 수 있는 것보다는 훨씬 더 많은 문자메시지를 주고받은 것으로 보이나 그 내용을 전부 확인할 수는 없다], 많은 전화 통화를 하였는데, 그 문자메시지의 내용 등에 비추어 피고인과 피해자는 매우 다정하고 애틋한 연인관계였던 것으로 보인다.

(4) The victim argued that the defendant sent a short letter in the form of answer to the letter sent by the defendant, and that the defendant sent a short letter without any sex, and that the defendant had no choice but to send the above text message in order to show sexually. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant made a desire or abused as above, and in light of the content of text message, etc., it is difficult to believe the victim's above argument. Further, even if the defendant promptly delivered the victim a letter "I want to send a letter containing the contents "(80 pages of evidence records)" and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant delivered the above letter in light of the victim's assertion that the defendant's sexual intercourse and the victim took place (the day after the crime of this case was committed). However, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant delivered the victim's sexual relationship as a whole, beyond the extent of the victim's sexual intercourse.

B. Determination as to the conflict

(1) Summary of the facts charged

(A) On April 16, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 01:30 on the west-gu, Sindong-si, Sindong-si, the Defendant: (a) while on the part of his own house in which the victim was her husband’s telephone should return to his house; (b) thereby preventing the victim from breaking the house; and (c) on the part of his husband, the victim’s telephone should not go back to her house; and (d) “I do not clearly contact with the association. I will not clearly call once now. I will not clearly call if you send the house. I will cut off all of the plaques that have been believed to be fright.” (b) At the market price of 200,000,000 won, which was worn on the spot from the victim who was frightbed.

(B) Around May 23, 2010, the Defendant retired from the Defendant’s office at the Defendant’s office, “I will start to drive the vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, but will do so. I will buy the vehicle on behalf of the Defendant. If I want to do so, I will inform the husband of her intention to do so. If I will do so, I will inform her husband of her intention to do so.” On May 24, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 1 million in cash from the Defendant’s office at around 08:00,000 from the Defendant’s office.

(C) Around August 16, 2010, the Defendant, at the above Defendant’s home, stated that “Around August 16, 2010, the Defendant would have to enter into a contract for a vicarious driving office, which would have changed the guarantee of KRW 3 million.” However, the Defendant refused to do so. The Defendant, who said, was fright to the victim by stating that “I will bring about the Victim with her her hon, her hon, and her hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon, without an association or a body. I think, I need to her hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon.h., without an association.” At this time, I would bring about the victim’s hon hon hon hon without an association or a body.”

In addition, on August 17, 2010, the Defendant had prepared money again to the victim with telephone at around 08:30 on August 17, 2010, but the Defendant expressed that the victim was unable to seek money, stating that “I am unable to ask for money. I am see why this walsday, the degree of its ability is close to that . . . . . . . . . .. am?, I am close to that . . . . . . .... am?, I would like to make a transfer to the husband without any contact in the future by writing that I would not notify her husband. . . . . .. Then, I do not have any qualification to do so because I am and I am. . . . .. .. .........” I received money from the victim frightn to the post office account in her name.

(2) As to the crime of April 16, 2010

The defendant asserts that there is no fact of threatening the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no way to receive the plaque.

First of all, there is only the victim's statement in relation to this part as evidence (the victim's statement is nothing more than the victim's statement that later made the victim's loss of satisfy from the victim). On the date and time stated in the facts charged, the victim tried to "I am hy that I am hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys

살피건대, 앞에서 본 증거들에 의하면 피해자는 위 범행일로부터 4일 뒤인 2010. 4. 20. 이후 피고인에게 아래 표와 같이 휴대전화 문자메시지를 발송한 사실이 인정되고, 그 이후에도 매우 애틋한 내용의 문자메시지를 서로 주고 받은 사실이 인정된다(증거기록 68쪽 이하 참조).

본문내 포함된 표 발송일시 내용 2010. 4. 20. 20:12 그래 당신에 뜻 다 알겠는데- 힘들어 내 맘 속에 당신을 지우기가 힘들어- 나 야망 없어 2010. 4. 21. 08:45 전화기 일부러 꺼 논 건 아니길 바래-- 당신 좋은 사람 같은데-- 왜 나 그립게 만들어 2010. 4. 21. 10:18 나 그런 이용 존재 몰라 그냥 자기가 그립고 편안하고 좋아 당신이 나 싫지 않다면 밀어내지 마 2010. 4. 21. 11:43 그냥 당신이 독하지 않은 사람인 것 같애 그냥 선한 사람 -- 이렇게 할 거면 왜 시작했어 시작하지 말든지- 2010. 4. 21. 16:12 당신 출근 몇 시에 할 건데-- 나 퇴근길에 커피 한 잔만 같이 마시고 출근함 안될까?? 2010. 4. 21. 16:53 이유도 없고 목적도 없어-- 당신이 그냥 보고 싶을 뿐-- 당신이 아니람 잊어야겠지만- 2010. 4. 21. 16:54 자고 있을 것 같네-- 난 출근 준비하고 나가기 5분 전- 푹 자고 문자해- 어쨌든 뒷일은 몰라 지금은 보고 풀 뿐이야 2010. 4. 22. 10:39 나 당신이 원하는 거 다 채워줄 수 없는 여자라는 거 알지만- 그래도 당신을 잊기가 힘들어- 2010. 4. 22. 12:14 난 당신 옆에 있음 안돼-- 당신이 그리던 사랑 나타나거든 떠날게-- 그것도 안될까 -- 2010. 4. 22. 12:22 당신 곁에 착한 여자 있을 때 그때 내가 당신 보내줄게 짐은 아닌 것 같아 난 아직 시작도 못했어 2010. 4. 24. 02:02 자기야 내말 빈정대지 말고 자기 나 사랑해줘-- 나 자기 상황 다 알아- 그래도 자기가 좋아- 2010. 4. 24. 02:05 난두 넘 힘들었고 짐두 힘들어-- 당신 잊는다는거 맘대로 안돼- 왜 답이 없노-- 슬프게-- 내 생각하면서 잘 자--

In light of the contents of the above text message, the victim, as alleged in the victim’s assertion, seems to have placed the victim’s right rather than taking into account the situation where the victim did not take a hedging by intimidation, etc. of the defendant even though the victim wanted to take the hedging between the defendant and the defendant, and the victim’s statement that the defendant delivered a plaque by threatening the victim as stated in the facts charged at least four (4) days before sending the above text message is difficult to believe, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant threatened the victim as described in the facts charged, without any reasonable doubt.

In addition, the health stand and the plaque itself are not submitted as evidence, and there is no evidence that the defendant possessed or disposed of the above plaque. The victim purchased approximately two million won (Evidence No. 168 pages) and the victim purchased them (Evidence No. 168 pages), while her husband purchased them with a gift, the her husband did not have any receipts, etc. related to the purchase (see, e.g., testimony at the trial court of the first instance of the witness Non-Indicted. 2, 228 pages). In the case of the gold package, it is common to keep the product warranty or receipt together. Considering the circumstances in which the victim did not keep the same at all, it is difficult to view that the above plaque is doubtful in itself as well as that the victim has delivered them to the defendant with the same circumstance as the facts charged without reasonable doubt.

(3) As to the crime of May 24, 2010

The defendant asserts that there is no hostile threat to the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no way to receive one million won from the victim.

On May 24, 2010, the victim sent a mobile phone text message to the defendant on May 24, 2010, stating that "I am hydd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd h.)" on the same day.

Furthermore, as to the issue of “the victim actually delivered the above money to the defendant,” the victim was deemed to have held the said money in advance because he was due to his father attending the university in Seoul, or because he was required to collect the said money (Evidence No. 231). 1 million won was almost two at home due to his smaller child’s change of money (Defendant Non-Indicted. 2’s statement at court of trial) and the said money stated that the Defendant was found in the National Bank or the Agricultural Cooperatives (No. 83 pages of trial record). First of all, if the victim’s statement related to the process of keeping the said money in custody is not consistent, and if the victim thought that he would have given money to his father in Seoul, there was no reason to keep the said money in custody at the bank account, and there was no reasonable doubt that the victim had kept the said money in custody or there was no evidence to prove that the victim had made a considerable amount of money in custody to the student’s child.

(4) As to the crime of August 17, 2010

The Defendant borrowed 3 million won from the victim, but did not follow as stated in the facts charged. Although the Defendant prepared and ordered a loan certificate in the Korean language, the Defendant demanded the victim to prepare and change the loan certificate in Korean, but did not see it to the victim. However, the Defendant asserted that the newly prepared Korean loan certificate was 59 pages of the evidence.

살피건대, 앞에서 본 증거들에 의하면 피고인이 피해자로부터 공소사실 기재와 같이 300만 원을 송금받은 사실은 인정된다. 그러나, 피해자는 위 범행 전후에도 피고인에게 연인관계가 유지되고 있는 것으로 보이는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈는데, 특히 2010. 8. 14.에는 ‘나 자기 많이 사랑해’, ‘왜 당신은 사랑한단 말 안해주는데-’, ‘여기 들렸다 갈래 커피 줄게’, ‘당신 나 진심으로 사랑하는 것 맞지’, ‘나 집에 잘 들어왔고 짐 화장실이야- 운전 조심하고 사랑해’, ‘오늘 조용해- 난 빨래 널어- 당신 생각하면서’, ‘신랑 자는데- 답 좀 해줘봐’라는 내용의 문자메시지를, 2010. 8. 15.에는 ‘그랬구나- 알서 수고하고 사랑해’, ‘저두 당신 사랑합니다- 영원히 사랑하고 싶습니다-’라는 내용의 문자메시지를 순차적으로 보냈고(증거기록 62쪽 이하), 위 범행 이후인 2010. 8. 19.에는 ‘무슨 말인지 모르겠어요 뭘 확인해달라는 건지’, ‘연락바랍니다’, 2010. 8. 23.에는 ‘몰라’, ‘연락바랍니다’라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 2010. 9. 16.에는 ‘배고프지 마트에서 간단한 거 뭐 사갈까 문자해 줘 옷만 입음 나갈게’, ‘당신 먹고 싶은거’, ‘다른 소리는 난두 짐 나가’, ‘많이 힘들어하지 말고 조심운전해요’, ‘뭐가 무슨 말이야 당신 걱정되’(증거기록 316쪽 이하) 등의 문자메시지를 보낸 사실이 인정된다.

In addition, with respect to “a tea certificate,” the victim argued that there is no fact that the victim received a loan certificate written in Korean from the defendant from the defendant to the investigation agency and the court of original trial, and that there is no fact that there is no fact that there is a request to prepare a loan certificate in Korean later (see, e.g., evidence records 235 pages, trial records 117 pages, etc.). However, it is difficult to conclude that the victim arbitrarily prepared the statement by the defendant, even if there is a problem, such as where there is no clear memory, and whether the victim is a son or not, and when the defendant pays money to the defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the witness is a son or a son’s statement is not a son or a son’s statement in Korean at the time of granting a loan certificate written by the defendant.” However, the statement made by the defendant to the effect that the defendant did not prepare a loan certificate in Korean. In light of the above circumstances, even if there is no 59 days loan certificate in Korean, it is difficult to conclude that it is a 3000 won of money loan.

In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the content of the foregoing text message, and the situation before and after receiving the money, etc., it is difficult to deem that the victim was threatened by the Defendant as stated in the facts charged, or was forced to take three million won by drinking the said intimidation, without any reasonable doubt.

C. Determination on injury

(1) Summary of the facts charged

(A) Around 08:00 on October 21, 2010, the Defendant demanded the victim’s house located in Ansan-si, Andong-si to prepare a letter of intent that the victim would be able to sleep one day if the victim wishes to do so, but the victim expressed his/her desire to “I want to see.I will do so within the association. I see it within the association. I am the victim’s hand, and brupted the victim’s brupt with a brupt, so that the victim could not know the number of days of treatment.”

(나) 피고인은 2010. 10. 31. 20:50경 안동시 정하동에 있는 ○○빌딩 지하주차장에서, 피해자가 휴대전화기의 전원을 끄고 자신의 연락을 받지 않았다는 이유로 피해자에게 “이 씨발년이 죽여버린다. 손님들 있는데 사단내면 즉방이겠네. 시댁에 알려야겠다.”라는 등으로 욕설을 하면서 양손으로 피해자의 목을 졸라 피해자에게 약 10일간의 치료를 요하는 목의 다발성 얕은 손상 등의 상해를 가하였다.

(2) Legal principles

In the crime of injury, the bodily condition of a victim is changed to a poor condition of the victim's body and a disability is caused to his/her living function. If the injured party's body is extremely minor and the injured party's body does not need treatment, and there is no difficulty in daily life even without treatment and the injured party's treatment can be naturally cured following the passage of time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party's physical condition was changed to a poor condition or that the injured party's living function was hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2673, Dec. 23, 1996; 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003).

(3) Determination

The defendant asserts that there was no injury to the victim as stated in the above facts charged.

(A) Circumstances pertaining to the crime of October 21, 2010

According to the above evidence, according to the following evidence: (a) the victim sent a cell phone text message to the defendant on October 22, 2010, stating that the victim "on the day after the crime was committed," "on October 22, 2010 (Evidence No. 63 pages, 340 pages), and (b) the photograph (Evidence No. 102 pages) taken by the cell phone with the cell phone with the body of the victim as evidence of the crime committed on October 21, 2010, it appears that the degree of the above body of the victim is very minor; (c) the victim did not have the body of the above body with respect to the above body of the victim, and there is no fact that the victim provided the above body of the victim with special treatment (the statement at the trial court of the witness No. 2).

(B) Circumstances related to the crime of October 31, 2010

According to the above evidence, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged.

① The victim sent a cell phone text message with the same contents as “the details of text message” before and after the commission of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Du309, Apr. 1, 201). In particular, the victim sent the text message to the defendant at around 20:50, which was immediately before and after the commission of the crime, as “Isssss and scams and scamsss and scamsscams,” and sent the text message at around 21:08, immediately after the commission of the crime, “Is and 30 minutes later,” and “Is and 21:45.”

(2) On November 1, 2010, the victim reported to the police by telephone, and submitted a written complaint on November 2, 201 on the following day. At that time, the victim mentioned the two preceding weeks injury by stating that “(the defendant) was satisfyed by satisfying the death of the deceased at Ulsan House before two weeks prior to the date, and satisfying the death of the deceased,” but did not mention the crimes of injury on October 31, 2010 prior to the date (the evidence record 162 pages).

③ Although the victim had different degree of connection with the above wound, he did not provide more medical treatment or she did not have any fact between the hospital. (No. 2, 2010) The police officer received a written complaint to the police, and the police officer provided the advice that it would be desirable to tur one of the diagnosis certificates because it is not believed that there is no evidence in the court. (3) On November 3, 2010, the victim provided the hospital with the advice that it would be desirable to ture one of the diagnosis certificates.

(4) The medical certificate was issued for the same reasons as the above. At that time, only the hospital was issued with the diagnosis, and there is no other fact that the hospital received medical treatment, such as injection or prescription.

(5) The name of sick person in the medical certificate is "damage to the diversity of each item", and it is not deemed that the degree of the situation is serious, and no photograph related to the part of the injury shall be taken and submitted.

(6) As above, the victim filed a complaint on November 2, 2010, and issued a diagnosis on November 3, 11 following the day, and only after preparing the victim’s statement on November 4, 2010, the victim mentioned the above facts of injury. The victim made a statement on October 24, 2010 (see, e.g., evidence records 174 pages, see, e., the second statement on November 5, 201, which was the following day, and corrected on October 31, 201 (see, e.g., evidence records 191 pages).

(C) Determination

Based on the above facts, it is acknowledged that the victim sent text messages with very pro-friendly contents as seen earlier to the defendant on a one-time basis adjacent to each of the above injury days, and there is no other objective material to acknowledge that there was any special circumstance to believe that the defendant abused the victim on a one-time basis as indicated in the facts charged. ② In addition to the statement of the victim who finds it difficult to believe that the victim suffered violence from the defendant in light of the date and time of sending mobile phone text messages and the contents thereof, there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the victim was suffering from the same wounds as the facts charged (in particular, around 20:50, before and after the crime date of October 31, 2010 (19:14 and 21:08). It is difficult to view that the victim had sent text messages with the same contents as mentioned in subparagraph (b) above to the extent that the victim was swornly injured by the victim as stated in the facts charged, and it is difficult to see that the victim did not have any other evidence as mentioned above.

Even if the fact that the victim suffered the above injury due to the Defendant’s assault, in light of the facts and legal principles acknowledged earlier, each of the above circumstances does not cause interference with the daily life of the victim, and further, it cannot be said that the injury was inflicted in the crime of injury to the extent that the treatment is not particularly necessary for the recovery of the injury.

D. Judgment on confinement

(1) Summary of the facts charged

At around 07:30 on October 26, 2010, the Defendant found the victim's house located in Ansan-si and Dong-si, with the victim's house from the vehicle, and took the victim's house in front of Dong-si, and then took the victim's house in front of Dong-si. The Defendant stated that "she does not treat human beings." The Defendant immediately cut off the victim's her shoulder and clothes, and then cut off the victim's cell phone from the her house, and then cut off the victim's cell phone. After that, the Defendant, after looking at the victim's repeated request for returning home from October 28, 2010 to October 20, 2010, the Defendant detained the victim by failing to show the victim's house.

(2) Determination

The defendant asserts that the victim was boomed by an agreement with the victim.

In light of the above evidence, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged.

(1) First of all, the victim stated in relation to the situation in which the victim was going to go to the defendant's house that "I am to leep on the condition that I am to the defendant's house," "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am (7 pages to the trial record)" on the following day, and the defendant stated that "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to the above agreement.

② The victim asserts that he/she responded to the above out-of-the-counter gambling, because he/she did not comply with the above time, such as “the Defendant immediately informed her husband.” The victim with husband and home has maintained the relationship with the Defendant after her husband’s death, and the Defendant seems to have conflict with the victim as to whether or not he/she maintained the relationship with the Defendant. Although there are circumstances where the victim decided to stay outside-of-the-spot by her husband in the above circumstances, there is no evidence to acknowledge that, in addition to the victim’s statement, there was a threat against the victim, such as “the Defendant informed her husband if he/she does not respond to gambling,” and on the contrary, it is difficult to recognize that there was no other evidence that the victim sent “the victim’s text message” from October 28, 2010 to October 18, 2010 to “the victim sent him/her prior to his/her death,” the victim’s text message should not be acknowledged.

(3) The Defendant did not specifically assault the victim during the period of confinement (180 pages of the evidence record), and the victim could have returned to the house when the victim was married with the victim by leaving the house during the period of confinement. However, the victim could not be found to have physically controlled the victim during the period of confinement because the Defendant was waiting to send the match (78 pages of the trial record) and there is no fact that the Defendant physically controlled the victim during the period of confinement.

(4) The victim stated that "The date I am the so-called Youngcheon Cancer, which would be the date of release from confinement," and the defendant saw that "the victim was too good to see" to see "the victim was able to see exactly as the two parties am the same, and the defendant tried to am the victim to write down an absolute increase in the victim's situation, and am the victim would come up with his marriage," and (85 pages of the trial record) It does not seem to be the form of the victim who was released from confinement.

In light of these facts and circumstances, in the situation of conflict between the Defendant and the victim, it is difficult to view that the Defendant and the victim merely took place together during the period of confinement as stated in the facts charged under mutual agreement, and that it was proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant detained the victim against his will.

E. Judgment on the injury caused by indecent act by compulsion

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Around 00:00 on October 27, 2010, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s refusal at his own house located in Ansan-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (i).

(2) Determination

The defendant asserts that the above resistance against this is made under the agreement with the victim, and that there is no assault or intimidation.

According to the above evidence, the fact that the defendant and the victim engaged in the act of anti-literious intercourse, and the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim’s external stay, the circumstance before and after the confinement period, and the attached text message details, etc., as seen in the above evidence, the victim did not appear to have been in line with the victim’s intent; ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant committed assault against the victim at the time of his/her resistance, and there is intimidation as stated in the facts charged. In light of various circumstances as seen in the above part, it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim’s statement merely believed the victim’s statement, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim threatened the victim as above; ③ the victim purchased the diesel diesel in line with the victim’s adult product store (see, e.g., 80 pages of the trial record, evidence record 195 pages, 248 pages, etc.); ④ the victim’s appearance was caused by his/her resistance with the victim, and the Defendant cannot be viewed as having agreed with the victim and the victim’s appearance and the Defendant cannot be viewed as having agreed with the victim (see, 26).

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, even based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed each crime against the victim as stated in the facts charged without any reasonable doubt. Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, the judgment of the court below convicts the victim pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as described in each of the above 2-b. D. E., and as seen above, each of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-man (Presiding Judge)