logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.12.13 2013고정1447
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around March 30, 2012, at the Defendant’s home toilet located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent the images of the Defendant’s sexual flag and self-defense with the Defendant’s cell phone (F); (b) while she walked from the Defendant’s cell phone to the Defendant’s cell (F) the Defendant’s cell phone, she was under the age of 21; and (c) the Defendant’s phone

On April 14, 2012, the Defendant called the said victim in the same manner at the same place, and transmitted the images of a sexual instrument and self-defense.

Accordingly, the Defendant sent the sound and image that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion through telephone for the purpose of inducing or meeting his or another person's sexual desire over twice.

2. We examine the judgment, and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is inadmissible in this court, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

In addition, since the witness H's statement as a police officer who investigated the defendant was led to confession from the police, it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant's statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6013 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.] Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “In cases where a statement made by a person other than the defendant (including a person who examined the defendant as a suspect before the institution of public prosecution or was involved in such investigation) at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial contains a statement of the defendant, such statement may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.”

Meanwhile, according to the records, the above F mobile phone is opened in the name of the defendant around October 29, 201, but the passport number of the defendant is stated in the contract as "I" and the above passport number is stated in the contract.

arrow