logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.01.10 2019고합295
성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등
Text

The charge of indecent act by compulsion around September 13, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case is not guilty. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the indecent act by compulsion is not guilty.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the indecent act by force on August 2009, among the facts charged in the instant case

A. On August 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the time of the Defendant’s home located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, the Defendant: (b) stated that the Defendant was “a person with her face and the face of the Defendant,” and “a person with her face,” the Defendant was her face near the victim’s face; and (c) was her panty by inserting her hand into the victim’s panty; and (d) became the victim’s her panty.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim who is a relative.

B. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating that “The facts charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor is not to have any specific effect on the date and time when the prosecutor is in conflict with double prosecution or prescription, whether the place falls under territorial jurisdiction, whether the place falls under the constituent elements of the crime, and whether the method falls under the constituent elements of the crime, to the extent that it is possible to distinguish other specific facts from other facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3082, Oct. 27, 200; 201Do506, Apr. 27, 2001; 203Do139, May 16, 2003).

However, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do1900, Jun. 25, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001). In such a case, it seriously interferes with the defendant’s reasonable exercise of defense right in light of the basic purport of the specific facts charged.

arrow