logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.02.21 2018고합250
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인위계등추행)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a pastor, and a person operating the “C” manufacturing plant in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D (referring to only the victim, 44 years of age, hereinafter “victim” or “D”) is a disabled person of Grade III with mental disorders, who is temporarily employed by the Defendant, from March 17, 2018 to March 23, 2018, to work at the above finc manufacturing plant.

The Defendant received the victim from E with a usual friendship, and around that time, he became aware of the fact that the victim is a disabled person by hearing the speech that “the head of a exchange is not good and mentally, and is designated as a basic living recipient from the State due to mental disorders and receives 700,000 won per month.”

At around 13:00 on March 21, 2018, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim in a resting space located in the above “C” factory; (b) placed the bridge in the victim’s side and prevented the victim from getting out of the victim’s body; (c) placed the victim’s fingers into the victim’s hub, and met the victim’s chest; and (d) “The husband has a large chest. The husband has several years of a sexual relationship; (c) whether the husband was her husband was her mother; (d) whether the husband was her mother; (d) whether the husband was her mother was her mother, and his body was her body was her mother and part, and was her part with the victim’s clothes continuously committed indecent acts.

In the facts charged, there is no indication that “the victim is unable to leave the bridge behind the victim’s body by taking the bridge above the victim’s body”.

1. However, in this court, the victim clearly stated that the defendant's intent was forced due to the above behavior of the defendant while "the defendant was unable to get out of the victim's body because he was unable to get out of the victim's body."

arrow