(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.1.8. 선고 2019노2924 판결

(a) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning attempted violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, Use and photographing);

As stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not have any fact about attempted to photograph the body of the victim D, and the statement by the victim D and I alone cannot be viewed as having proved this part of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant denies this part of the facts charged relatively consistently from the investigation stage to the trial at the court. The Defendant did not discover photographs or videos showing the body of the victim D from his mobile phone.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant attempted to photograph the victim’s body in the same manner as the stated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant’s assertion disputing this is not acceptable.

1) 피해자 D은 수사기관에서부터 원심법정에 이르기까지 비교적 일관되게 이 사건 공소사실에 부합하는 진술을 하였는데, 이러한 피해자 D의 진술은 그 내용이 일관적이고 구체적인 정황의 세세한 부분까지 비교적 명확하고 상세하게 묘사한 것일 뿐만 아니라 직접 경험하지 않고는 알기 어려운 내용으로 보이며, 피해자 D이 원심법정에서, 보여준 꾸밈 없는 진술 태도 등에 비추어 피해자 D이 위증 또는 무고의 벌을 감수하면서까지 허위로 진술하였다고 보기 어렵다.

① The toilets in which the instant case occurred did not have her reputation since lighting was turned on, ② the victim D did not drink the alcohol at the time of the instant case. As such, the victim D did not have any possibility that the victim D would have known about her pictureer, etc., ③ the victim’s statements were replaced and consistent with the facts charged, and ③ the victim’s statements, including the victim, correspond to the facts charged, should not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that her credibility is significantly reliable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The case where the statements are consistent in the main part of the instant case, even if there is little consistency in the statements on other minor matters, the credibility of the statements should not be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112, Aug. 20, 209).

2) 피고인은 '식사를 하던 중 속이 울렁거려 화장실에 들어가 변기에 구토하려고 하는데, 옆 칸에서 누군가 소리를 질러서 깜짝 놀라 일어나면서 손에 들고 있던 휴대폰을 변기 속으로 실수로 떨어뜨렸다'는 취지로 주장한다.

그러나 ① 피해자 D은 사건 당시 화장실에서 아무런 소리가 들리지 않았다고 진술하였던 점(이에 대해 피고인은 당심에서 '구토할 때 반드시 소리가 동반되지 않을 수도 있다'는 취지로 주장하나, 피고인은 수사기관에서 구토 당시 '우웩'하는 소리가 났었다. 고 진술하였던 점, 공복 상태에서 구토를 하는 경우 토사물을 배출하기 위해 힘을 주는 과정에서 큰 소리가 나는 것이 일반적인 점 등을 고려하면, 피고인의 위 주장은 수긍하기 어렵다), ② 피고인은 수사기관에서 변기를 잡고 구토를 하면서도 휴대폰을 손에 쥐고 있었던 이유에 대해 납득할 만한 설명을 하지 못하였던 점(더욱이 피고인은 '위 휴대폰은 당시 피고인이 사용하지 않았던 공기계 휴대폰이며, 사건 발생 이전에 고장이 난 상태였다'는 취지로 진술하였는데, 평소 사용하지도 않을 뿐만 아니라 작동조차 하지 않는 휴대폰을 손에 쥐고 있었다는 것은 매우 이례적이다) 등의 사정을 종합하면, 이 부분 공소사실을 부인하는 피고인의 주장은 신빙성이 없다.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

It is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from that of the appellate court (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

The defendant is recognized as committing a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault), and is against the defendant. The agreement is reached with the victim of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault), and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras and photographing) is committed against the attempted crime, etc. is favorable to the defendant.

Meanwhile, in light of the background and method of the crime, etc., the crime of this case is bad, despite the fact that the defendant denies the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and does not reflect it, the defendant has been punished several times, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same and different kinds of crimes, and in particular, committed each of the crimes of this case during the suspension of execution due to the same crime, and did not agree with the victim of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking account of the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant as above, and did not find any circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial of the Defendant. In full view of the various circumstances, including the motive and means of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.