logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.10.04 2013고합145
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 29, 2013, at around 21:30, the Defendant stated that “D” restaurant in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the victim E (n, 16 years old) who walk the said road would put the victim’s left hand with the victim’s left hand, and “I want to walk the road.”

As a result, the defendant committed an indecent act against a child or juvenile victim by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of CCTV photographs for the purpose of crime prevention in the aftermath village), and CCTV photographs for the purpose of crime prevention in the aftermath village;

1. Article 7 (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 298 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 21(2) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, an order to complete a program shall be imposed, inasmuch as the Defendant is found guilty of a fine, but such order is not imposed in a summary order, and only the Defendant does not impose an order to complete a program in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the instant case where a request for formal trial was made (see Supreme Court

1. Although the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel had been in the vicinity of the place indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant asserts that there was no fact that he/she committed any act identical to the facts charged.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined in this court, i.e., the victim, since the investigation agency.

arrow