(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노3072 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노3072

강제추행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In the absence of credibility, the victim’s statement to the effect that the defendant was forced to commit an indecent act, such as taking dancing in line with the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the sole basis of the victim’s statement. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Each statement in the police of the victim, the prosecution, and the court of the court below is divided into ① the situation before the first first set, ② the situation from the first set to the first set, ③ the situation from the second to the second set, and ③ the major part is consistent as follows.

① With respect to the situation before the first stop, the victim stated that the Defendant made a somewhat different statement (police: the shoulder and shoulder, the prosecution: the right shoulder through the shoulder below the shoulder, the court of original instance: the Defendant, who took full part of the Defendant’s order, was in the vicinity of the shoulder, making it difficult for the Defendant to turn to the left at the shooting distance of the wife G while the victim continued to stop.

② With respect to the situation from the first stop to the point of departure, the victim stated somewhat different reasons from the situation of the vehicle (police: the defendant demanded to leave the vehicle; the prosecutor's office and the court below's court; the prosecutor's office and the court below's court made a request to leave the vehicle; the driver's office and the court below's court did not drive the vehicle; the driver's office and the court below's court made a request to leave the vehicle first); the defendant left the vehicle as a whole after driving the vehicle; the defendant wanted to pay the substitute driving fee by the card, but the defendant refused to pay the substitute driving fee on the ground that the victim did not have the device; the victim did not pay the fee in cash; the defendant did not pay the driver's seat; and the victim started to drive the vehicle again

was stated.

(3) The second.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2006. 08. 04. 선고 2006가단62759 판결

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.01.12 2015고단574

-대구지방법원 2015.02.13 2014노2761

-수원지방법원 2008.4.18.선고 2007구단5206 판결

-인천지방법원 2019.01.11 2018노4031