beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
The Defendant is the operator of C Co., Ltd., and the victim D (n, 29 years of age) is the employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd.
On October 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 18:30 on October 10, 2013, told the victim under the supervision of the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together; (b) fluencing the recruitment of new employees and the increase of monthly salary, etc.; (c) fluencing the victim by singing in a singing room; and (d) flucing the victim with drinking the victim’s chest; (c) fluencing the victim’s chest; and (d) flucing the victim’s chest at a singing room, the Defendant toldd the victim that “I would fluen the victim at night,” but said, the victim said that “I would flue the victim to go on his house.”
Therefore, the Defendant: (a) driven a car by getting the victim to the head of the car group on October 11, 2013; (b) parked the said car at the Gel branch located in Yan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F on October 11, 2013; and (c) laid the victim voluntarily kid by the victim in the steering gu, and continuously kid the victim with two arms in which the victim was tightly kid, and the victim was tightly kid, and kid by the victim’s spath and ear; (c) kid the victim’s spath with his hand, kid with the victim’s will and panty; and (d) putting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim, thereby having sexual intercourse once with the victim by force by inserting it into the part of the victim.
Judgment
1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim as stated in the facts charged, but only limited to the agreement with the victim and did not use occupational power.
2. The meaning of force means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will, and is not tangible or intangible, and thus, it is also possible to use not only assault and intimidation but also social, economic, and political status or the right and duty, and thus, it does not require that the victim’s will of freedom is practically threatened (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009).