(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016노1289

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016노1289

강제추행등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the crime as indicated in the judgment below, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged by mistake.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to determine the lower court guilty of the part of the instant charges of indecent act by compulsion, and there was no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant, contrary to what is alleged by the Defendant.

① In the police and the lower court’s judgment, H, an employee of the E-cafeteria, did not see that the Defendant committed an indecent act by the Defendant at the police and the lower court. The Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim gets fright, frighten, frighten,” and that “the Defendant frighten, frighten, frighten, frighten, frighten,” and that “the victim moved frighten and frighten, frighten.”

In light of the victim's speech, H's statement consistent with the facts charged of the indecent act by compulsion of this case is not deemed to have been unilaterally favorable to the victim, such as that the defendant was unable to see the scene of indecent act by the victim, and the judgment of the Republic of Korea H stated on the day of this case that he would have caused the victim to be issued a written diagnosis (the I's statement in the court below is the same as the I's statement in the court below), and it appears that there was a neutral position between the victim and the defendant.

The injured party is H. H. in the original judgment.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.17 2020노897

-전주지방법원 2016.11.10 2016노870

-대전지방법원 2017.01.25 2016노2346

-제주지방법원 2014.07.24 2014노254

-서울서부지방법원 2015.07.10 2015노430