logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.11.12 2014도5466
강제추행등
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the indecent act by compulsion was as follows: “The Defendant, at the main point located in Busan around July 22, 2013, drinked alcohol with K and K’s de facto marriage D (n, 47 years of age) with the victim D (n, who is the de facto marriage) at ordinary times, and K’s toilet between the victim and the victim “I are infinite, I are infinite, I are infinite, I are infinite, and I are infinite, I would like to commit an indecent act against the victim on the ground that the victim respondeded to “hin,” and “I would like to commit an indecent act against the victim on the ground that the victim would have been divorced.” The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) In other words, the victim made a statement at the police that "the defendant has reached several times the chests of the victim," but in the court of first instance, it is not consistent with the statement, such as "the defendant has raised the victim's chest on the bottom of the victim's chest by hand and has reached several times."

(2) He, a witness, stated in the police that “A defendant and the victim were seriously disputed, and the defendant reached the victim’s chest by hand,” but in the court of first instance, the court of first instance testified that “(i) the victim is frighting to the face of the defendant, so that the defendant also takes a bath, and knife between the chest and the shoulder by hand. ② The defendant was not only the victim’s chest, but also the upper part of the chest by hand. ③ The defendant testified to the victim that “a knife is knife.”

(3) The possibility that the victim was misunderstanding the Defendant’s grandchildren on the chest side in the course of dispute as above may be ruled out.

arrow