2014No3575 Indecent Act by compulsion

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Isle (Lawsuits) Dozle (Trial) Dozle (Trial)

Attorney Shin Jae-hoon et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Da4356 Decided November 19, 2014

July 22, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts);

According to the evidence, the defendant can be found to have committed an indecent act against the victim as shown in the facts charged. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by mistake.

2. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is* a person who operates a private taxi.

On June 19, 2013, at around 30:30, the Defendant: (a) 19, the Defendant: (b) was in the Maduk-gu Shin-jin-jin-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak (n, 31 years old); (c) was in operation of a taxi in front of the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a destination destination, and was in operation of a taxi prior to the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Acheon High-speed Toll Road located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (d) around the expiration of the last road of the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Sbuck-gu, the Defendant called “Isk-kick-gu, the face to make the dial-buck easily known to the victim, and (d) came into operation in front of the victim’s buck-gu, the Defendant again called “Isk-kick-gu, Isked the victim’s k.

3. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

① The Defendant consistently stated in an investigative agency that the victim’s bridge was delivered twice with the consent of the victim until the court below rendered the judgment below.

② When making several calls to the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife, the victim and the victim continued to demand the amount of KRW 3 million to KRW 5 million, which was agreed upon. On several occasions, the victim and the victim stated that the Defendant was detained and the Defendant would have to pay a maximum amount of fine to the prison, if the agreement is not deemed to have been reached.

③ The taxi driven by the Defendant is K5 modeled in K5, and the distance from the driver’s vehicle to the rear seat is about 176 cm, and the height of the Defendant is about 174 5 cm and about 76 cm in length.

(4) Although the defendant can cross up his/her bridge that he/she sits into a driver's seat and moves into a taxi driver's seat over his/her rear part, he/she can cross up his/her bridge that he/she sits into the rear part, it is difficult to cross up his/her bridge on the right side of the rear part or on the side of the back part without the cooperation of the passenger.

B. Specific determination

The prosecutor submitted a CD recording the victim’s statement and statement to the police as evidence, but this constitutes hearsay evidence. The defendant and defense counsel did not agree to the admissibility of the above hearsay evidence. While the prosecutor applied for the victim as a witness at the court below, the victim was unable to appear on the trial date due to his unknown whereabouts. The above hearsay evidence was not only proven the authenticity of the establishment by the statement at the preparatory hearing or the trial date of the original person, but also did not guarantee the cross-examination right of the defendant or defense counsel. However, in light of the circumstances such as paragraph (2) of the above facts, and the defendant's contact with the victim after filing a complaint with the victim due to the victim's no accusation and the suspension of prosecution, it cannot be deemed that the victim's statement to the investigation agency was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and thus, it cannot be admitted as hearsay evidence. In light of the above facts, it cannot be admitted that the defendant's assertion that there was an indecent act on other parts of the defendant submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to find otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges Park Jae-jin

Judges Man-man