2019Gohap313 Quasi-rape

A

A motion or prosecution (prosecution) and a trial (trial)

Attorney Lee Jong-soo (Korean)

December 20, 2019

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The defendant is a person who has operated a marina business, and the victim B (n, 33 years of age, and 2 years of age) is an employee at the business place operated by the defendant.

At around 20:00 on October 5, 2018, the Defendant drinked alcoholic beverages with the victim and C, and at around 00:00 on the following day, at the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, three persons drink alcoholic beverages at the Defendant’s house, and at the ward, three persons drink alcoholic beverages at the Defendant’s house and panty of the victim, she exceeded the Defendant’s sexual organ inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the following other victim, such as the victim, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's mental condition.

2. Determination

The evidence concerning the facts charged of this case is practically the only statement of the victim. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged of this case is proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

A. The victim makes a consistent statement to the effect that he/she had sexual intercourse with himself/herself, as he/she saw that his/her sexual organ is booming from the appearance of his/her sexual organ. However, even according to the victim's statement, the victim does not directly regard the inserting the Defendant's sexual organ into his/her sexual organ, but only received it.

B. In particular, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to say that the victim’s statement was based on the memory of the actual experienced facts.

1) First of all, the victim’s memory is naturally not naturally connected and temporarily cut down. The victim, at the home of the defendant, is unable to dump almost all the processes during which he drinks with the defendant, etc., with the defendant. After that, the victim said, the victim was aware of the defendant’s sexual intercourse in sofacion, and said, the defendant was unfolded with the defendant. After that, there is no explanation as to how the defendant came up with the victim’s will and clothes, and how the defendant came up with the victim’s body and the defendant’s body as it was. Moreover, the victim was coming into the lock toilets, and the victim took up with the victim’s body. The victim was unable to associate with the process of the victim’s body and return to the house of the defendant. The victim’s body can be understood as a result of drinking before the locking, but it is difficult to accept the situation of the victim and the circumstances after the sexual intercourse after the locking of the case.

2) The victim’s statement does not contain a clear description of the detailed situation or is colored. The victim stated that she would fresh the body of the defendant, and that she would be unfreshing the body of the defendant. However, the victim did not completely unfresh the victim’s body even though she returned to the body of the defendant, and even she was out of the victim’s body. Even if she was out of the victim’s body, she did not directly confirm how she was out of the victim’s clothes and her clothes were unfreshed at the time of the victim’s statement. The victim did not know how she had sexual intercourse with the victim’s body until she was out of the victim’s body until she was out of the victim’s body, and the victim was out of the victim’s body and the victim did not know how she had sexual intercourse with the victim’s body until she was out of the victim’s body at the time of the victim’s statement.

3) 피해자는 피해를 당했다는 날의 그 다음날인 2018. 10. 7.(일) 11:23경 카카오톡 메신저로 피고인에게 "저 어제 아무 일 없었나요?"라는 문자메시지를 보낸 것을 시작으로 같은 날 21:49경까지 피고인과 장시간 문자메시지를 주고받았는데, 당시 피해자는 전날 새벽에 피고인이 뒤에서 피해자를 간음한 기억이 너무 생생하다고 하면서도 "어제 뭔가 안 좋은 기억이 자꾸 떠오르는데 꿈 꾼 건지", "제 기억엔 이상한 기억이 있는데, 꿈인가 하는데, 너무 생생해서...", "제 속옷이랑 바지가 벗겨진 기억은 왜 있는 건지 모르겠네요", "집에 오다 성폭행이라도 당한 건가...뭔가 기억이 너무 생생한데...", "오다 성폭행 당했나...집 와서 옷 갈아입고 잘 잤는데...산부인과 가봐야 되려나요? 경찰서 가야 되나? 택시기사가 성폭행 했나... 느낌이 너무 이상해서...어떻게 하는 게 좋을 까요.", "느낌이 이상해서 깼는데, 실장님이 뒤에서 저한테 하고 있었던 기억. 그래서 제가 건들지 말라고 그러고 제 속옷이랑 바지 입힌 기억. 전 왜 이런 기억이 남아 있는지", "실장님이 저한테 그랬나 이러고 있었어요, 오해라면 죄송해요. 근데 기억이", "꿈인 건지", "제가 왜 이런 기억이 있는지 모르겠어요. 그래서 하루 종일 머리 속이 복잡했네요", "오해했다면 죄송해요. 기억이 너무 생생하게 안 좋아서", "저도 모르겠네요. 왜 그런 기억이 있는 건지"라며 여러 번에 걸쳐 피고인으로부터 간음을 당한 듯한 기억이 꿈인지 사실인지 잘 모르겠다고 혼란스러워하는 모습을 보였다. 피해자는 그 무렵 F에게 연락하여 자신의 기억을 전할 때에도 "꿈인 건지 머리가 아프다"고 말했다고 피고인에게 보낸 문자메시지에서 스스로 언급하였다. 그 후에도 피해자는 그 다음날인 2018. 10. 8.(월) 06:26경 다시 피고인에게 카카오톡 메신저로 "아무리 생각해 봐도 꿈이라고 하기엔 너무 아닌 거 같다"면서 "솔직하게 말해 달라"고 하고서는 정작 그 후 2018. 10. 12.(금) 밤에 피고인을 만날 때까지는 더 이상 피고인에게 자신의 기억을 언급하거나 추궁하지 않은 것으로 보인다. 이러한 카카오톡 메신저 대화에서 드러난 피해자의 모습은 스스로도 자신의 기억이 실제 경험에 의한 것인지 좀처럼 확신하지 못하고 있다.

4) Although the victim appeared as a witness in this court and made a sexual assault from the defendant at the time, it is difficult to understand how the victim was aware that he had sexual intercourse with the defendant at that time. Moreover, it is difficult to understand that the victim had sexual intercourse with the defendant, even though he was aware that the defendant would not memory the situation at that time, or that the defendant sent me to her fry to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her face when the victim had already her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her face and to her to her to her to her to her to her face her to her to her to her to her to her to her.

5) According to the statement of the victim, only 1 week after the victim was injured and reported to the police only after he was led to a confession on October 13, 2018 (to the effect that she was actually able to do so). It is difficult to see that the victim was aware that she had sexual intercourse with her own. Also, according to the Kakao conversation that the victim was sent to the police, it is difficult to understand whether she was present at the time, and whether she was able to know whether her body or her body at the time when she was exposed to 10 days after her sexual intercourse. Even if she was found at the time when she was exposed to the police station or her body, she did not seem to have been able to know that she was sexual intercourse with the defendant at the time of 10 days after she was exposed to the police station or her body, and that she was still aware of the victim's body and her body at the time of 10 days after she was exposed to the victim's body.

6) Even based on the statement of the victim, the victim worked for at least three days at a business establishment operated by the defendant on October 9, 2018, October 11, 10, and October 12 (gold). The victim stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that he was working for the defendant at the time of the investigation that he did not have a fluority. The victim’s statement that he had the intent to accurately grasp the defendant’s identity was already in the situation where the victim had a reasonable contact with the defendant at the time, and the location of the defendant’s office and business was known, and that the defendant’s face was known, it is difficult to understand it as it is. Even if the victim did not report the reason that he was working for the time of this court without making a report, the victim could not have been aware of the victim’s sexual intercourse at the time of the victim’s statement. However, the victim’s statement that he did not know that he did not have a fluority in itself at the time of his sexual assault.

7) According to the victim’s statement, on August 12, 2018, the victim made a strong doubt that he/she had sexual intercourse between the Defendant and the Defendant’s house on the first day of drinking alcohol, and that he/she had no memory until he/she gets out of the next day, and that he/she had sexual intercourse between him/her. At the same time, the victim made it difficult to find out the possibility that he/she had sexual intercourse with the Defendant at the time when he/she had his/her blue or her blue with past experience and suspicions, and that he/she had a strong doubt that he/she had sexual intercourse between him/herself, and that he/she had a fluely distorted situation, such as his/her memory, and that he/she had a fluely distorted situation at the time of his/her flueing it, and that he/she had a fluely distorted situation at the time of his/her flueing it.

다. 피해자는 2018. 10. 13.(토) 새벽 피고인이 "실수했다. 잘못했다. 미안하다"고 성폭행 사실을 인정하고 사과하였다고 일관하여 진술하였고, 그날 새벽 06:12부터 06:34까지 피해자가 피고인과 주고받은 카카오톡 메시지에도 같은 내용이 담겨 있다. 그러나 피고인은 당시 피해자가 술에 취해 계속 울면서 성폭행 사실을 인정하라고 요구하기에 사장으로서 피해자가 그동안 오해로 계속 힘들어하는지 몰라줘서 미안하다는 취지로 말했을 뿐, 성폭행 사실을 인정하거나 사과한 적은 없다고 일관하여 주장하고 있고, 그 무렵 피고인이 피해자과 주고받은 카카오톡 메시지에도 피고인의 그런 입장이 그대로 담겨 있다. 그런데 피해자의 진술에 의하더라도 피고인이 뭘 어떻게 잘못했다는 것인지 그 구체적인 내용이 담겨 있지 않아 피고인이 당시 정확히 어떤 말을 했는지 알기 어렵고, 그 발언 경위도 상세하게 알기 어렵다. 피해자의 진술에 의하면 당시 피해자는 이 사건이 있었던 날 말고 처음 피고인과 함께 술을 먹고 기억이 끊겼던 날에 대해서도 추궁했던 것으로 보인다. 그에 더하여 피해자의 진술에 의하더라도 피고인은 주점 밖에서 피해자에게 잘못을 인정하고 사과하였으나 주점 안으로 들어오자마자 이를 번복하였다는 것이고, 경찰에 신고하겠다는 피해자에게 "이따 술 깨고 다시 얘기하자"는 말도 했다는 것이다. 나아가 그동안 1주일 가까이 피해자의 의심이 전혀 사실무근이라는 입장을 고수하던 피고인이 왜 그날 갑자기 성폭행 사실을 인정하였다.는 것인지도 의문이다. 이러한 점들에 비추어 보면, 당시 피고인은 피고인의 주장대로 자신에 대한 일방적인 오해에 극도로 집착한 나머지 주점에서 울고 불면서 잘못을 인정하라고 계속 요구하는 피해자를 진정시키기 위해 무조건 잘못했다거나 미안하다는 취지의 말을 했을 수 있고 피해자는 이를 피고인이 성폭행 사실을 인정한 것으로 이해하였을 수도 있으며, 그래서 피고인은 주점 안에서 피해자의 잘못된 이해를 바로잡으려고 하였고, 이를 피해자는 피고인이 진술을 번복하는 것으로 이해했을 수도 있다. 따라서 피해자의 진술만으로는 피고인이 실제로 이 사건 공소사실을 인정하는 자백 취지의 진술을 하였다고 단정하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 피해자의 진술에 담겨 있는 피고인의 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태에서 이루어졌다고 보기도 어려워 이를 유죄의 증거로 삼을 수도 없다.

D. The victim found her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her b her her her her her her her her her her b her her b her her her s his her her own.

E. According to the prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant, there was a false response to the defendant's statement denying the crime in the investigation of the defendant's false verbal detection devices, while in the investigation of the victim's false oral detection devices, it appears that the victim's false oral detection devices were true. However, unless there is any evidence suggesting that the investigation of the victim's false oral detection devices conducted against the defendant at the time meets the requirements that can be trusted as evidence, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's unfavorable

바. 피고인은 이 사건 다음날인 2018. 10. 7.(일) 피해자와 처음 카카오톡 메신저로 대화할 때부터 시작하여 수사기관을 거쳐 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 "피해자 등과 함께 술을 먹던 중 피해자가 소파에서 잠이 들어 잠든 피해자를 안아 안방으로 옮겨 준 적이 있을 뿐, 피해자를 간음한 적이 없다"고 일관하여 변소하고 있다. 우선 당시 안방 침대에는 함께 술을 마시던 다른 여성이 자고 있었으므로 소파에 잠든 피해자를 안방으로 옮기려고 했다는 피고인의 변소는 충분히 수긍할 수 있다. 나아가 이러한 피고인의 변소와 피해자의 진술을 서로 비교해 보면, 피고인이 술에 취해 소파에 잠든 피해자를 억지로 안아서 안방으로 옮기는 과정에서 이루어진 신체 접촉을 당시 피해자가 잠결에 성폭행과 같은 몹시 불쾌한 경험으로 잘못 인식하거나 기존에 갖고 있던 의심과 결합하여 성폭행에 관한 경험으로 잘못 기억해 냈을 가능성을 배제할 수 없다. 특히 피고인은 피해자가 건드리지 말라고 한 것도 피고인이 소파에 잠든 피해자를 안방으로 옮기기 위해 뒤에서 안았을 때 한 말이라고 진술하고 있는데, 사실 "건드리지 말라"는 말은 뒤에서 자신을 간음하는 사람을 발견했을 때 하는 말보다는 술에 취해자는데 자꾸 귀찮게 하는 사람에게 잠결에 하는 말로 더 자연스러워 보인다. 더구나 피고인은 앞서 본 바와 같이 성폭행을 의심하는 피해자에게 산부인과에 가면 성폭행 흔적을 찾을 수 있다면서 빨리 산부인과를 가보라고 조언하거나 속옷을 챙겨뒀다는 피해자에게 잘했다고 말하기도 하였다. 또한 피고인은 거짓말탐지기 조사 결과는 증거가 될 수 없다는 점을 잘 알면서도 수사기관의 거짓말탐지기 조사에 순순히 응하였고 자신의 무고함을 증명하기 위해 피해자에게도 거짓말탐지기 조사를 해 달라고 요구하기도 하였다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of this judgment is publicly announced under the main sentence

The presiding judge and the senior judge;

Judges Go Young-sik

Judges Yangyang-in