Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

From January 2, 2012, the Defendant is a correctional officer who has been engaged in the management of inmates in a female prison from around January 2, 2012, and the victim C (math and 29 years of age) was admitted to a female prison from September 12, 2012 to December 23, 2014 as a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.). The Defendant was transferred to the Seoul Southern Prison on December 24, 2014, and is currently being admitted to the said prison until now.

1. Around October 2013, the Defendant abused official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights: (a) separately laid off C in the staff room of the Innju correctional institution D in an innju City located in the 212 nautical miles of the Sin-Eup, Nam-do; and (b) displayed the sexual panty off and panty panty, under the pretext of examining the sexual booms.

Accordingly, the defendant abused his official authority and let C in prison do an unobligatory act by abusing his official authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement made by C of a witness in the third protocol of trial;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Protocols of partial prosecutorial and police statements concerning C;

1. The defendant's defense counsel in the inquiry and reply of the fact-finding by the head of the relevant correctional institution asserts that, while the defendant observe the body of the victim at the public bath, the insertion of the protype, which is an act subject to disciplinary action, was doubtful, and since the prison officer's authority and authority prescribed by the law to confirm it was exercised in accordance with normal procedure, it does not constitute abuse of authority.

In relation to the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights under Article 123 of the Criminal Act, “an abuse of authority” means a case where a public official unlawfully exercises matters belonging to the general authority, that is, in the form of a formal and external execution of duties, does an act other than legitimate authority, and the standard of determining whether a public official constitutes abuse is the case where the specific public official’s act was