logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.06.22 2016가단102069
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 13, 2015 to June 22, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were enrolled in the third year of C High School in 2015, and were friendly for three years.

B. At around 19:15 on June 13, 2015, the Defendant, when he listened to the field alcohol in the “E” located on the second floor of the building D in Ansan-si, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Plaintiff was going to female toilets; and (b) accessed the public toilets with a view to satisfy his sexual desire by taking the Plaintiff’s side partitions, following the Plaintiff, into a female toilet, in order to steals the appearance of the Plaintiff’s melting it.

C. The defendant Na

항 기재와 같이 화장실에서, 용변을 보는 원고의 모습을 촬영하기 위하여 자신이 소지하고 있던 HTC 휴대전화기(디자이어)의 카메라 촬영기능을 켠 채 원고가 있는 용변 칸 위 틈으로 들이밀어, 성적 욕망 또는 수치심을 유발할 수 있는 용변을 보고 있는 원고의 신체를 원고의 의사에 반하여 촬영하려고 하였으나, 원고에게 발각되어 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그쳤다. 라.

B. The defendant b.

C. On January 19, 2018, the Suwon District Court rendered a suspended sentence of two years, probation, community service, 200 hours, and 40-hour course of sexual assault treatment in October, 2018, with respect to the criminal facts stated in the paragraph (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant criminal act”), and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, probation, community service, 20 hours, and 40-hour course of sexual assault treatment, and the defendant appealed against this, and is still pending in the appellate trial.

(Ground for recognition) The facts of absence of dispute, Gap 2, 7 through 9, 11, Eul 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The facts recognized in the judgment in a related criminal case shall be deemed as valuable evidence in a civil trial, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6075, May 9, 1989).

arrow