logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014고합203
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간)
Text

The Defendants are not guilty, and each of them is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on December 22, 2012, the Defendants: (b) sexual intercourse with the victim E (the victim E, 15 years of age) who is a child or juvenile, and two other persons are drinking together; (c) Defendant A threatened the victim who is in a small room under the influence of alcohol, with “I wish to do so, she will do so, she will do so; and (d) prevent the victim from going up to the body of the victim; and (e) when the head of the victim was his/her hand at the floor, he/she could not resist the victim; and (e) sexual intercourse with the victim at one time; and (e) Defendant B, who was waiting in another room, committed sexual intercourse with the victim by preventing the victim from taking the victim’s shoulder and resisting him/her; and (e) sexual intercourse with the victim once.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the Defendants and their defense counsel met the alcohol with the victim at the time and place specified in the above facts charged, but they did not commit rape, and they denied the above facts charged.

B. 1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). 2) First, as to whether the defendant A has raped with E, there is a statement in E's investigation agency and this court, as well as in F's investigation agency, and as such, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, in the first police investigation process, the defendant Eul is bound to be judged as the defendant Eul.

arrow