logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.09 2014고단2752
강제추행
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 10, 2014, at around 03:48, the Defendant discovered the friendly-gu and the victim C (bee 26 years of age) who walked on the road located in the Newdong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and tried to commit an indecent act against the victim by committing an indecent act against the victim by drinking the victim's chest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness C and D;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that "the defendant did not have any fact about the victim's chest, and even if the defendant's grandchildren contacted the victim's chest, this is due to the defendant's act committed against the victim to cause a conflict with the victim, and there was no intention of indecent act."

In full view of the following facts: ① the victim C and witness D have made a relatively consistent and specific statement from the investigative agency to the court; ② the victim and witness did not have any special circumstance to gather the defendant in a false manner; and even if the victim and witness did not appear in light of the contents of the victim and witness’s statement or their attitude, it is difficult for the victim and witness to view that they have made a false statement even when they were under the charge of perjury or punishment without accusation, etc., the credibility of the victim and witness’s statement is high (if there are some differences in the degree of indecent act in the victim and witness’s statement, it is not enough to dismiss the credibility of the witness’s statement). ③ In addition, in light of the victim and witness’s age (26 years old and witness’s age, witness, only 24 years old) at the time of the instant case and the place of witness’s criminal act, etc., it appears that there was sufficient distinction between the defendant and witness’s testimony at the time of the instant case.

arrow