(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노708 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노708

공연음란

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the place where the instant crime was committed, was suffering from pre-feasible pre-feasing so that the Defendant did not have any obscenity but did not engage in obscenity; and (b) the place of this case is not recognizable to an unspecified or multiple persons; and (c) the Defendant’s act cannot be punished as a crime of obscenity for performing.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that the Defendant did not have a obscene act, the Defendant may fully recognize the facts charged of the instant case that the Defendant committed an obscene act by taking the custody of obscenity out of the sexual organ. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) A witness E, a witness, made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant had a sexual organ that was discovered by viewing the inside of the head of the family in his/her head of the family in his/her head of the family in his/her head of the family,” and the above statement was false.

There is no circumstance that E is or is exaggerated (the 34th page, E-record, 5, 11, 14 pages). 2) E finds a defendant and enters a head office.

self-employed workers have been employed, and the above employees have prevented the Defendant, and “I see why she is flick and flicked, why she is flick, why she is flick;

Is Bali Maura

“The Defendant appears to have discussed the dispute (48 pages, E, page 11 of the investigation record), and the above employee reported the Defendant to the police.

3) The Defendant, who was galed by the investigative agency and returned home at the investigative agency, tried to go to the parking lot, and tried to go to go to the parking lot, and did not stay 30 minutes in the parking lot.

Although the defendant made a statement (18, 36, 45, 47 pages of investigation records), E sees the defendant's right to remain outside the head of the head of the door, and sees the head of the door.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.25 2016고단2124

-수원지방법원 2019.10.04 2019노4221

-대구지방법원 2015.07.09 2015고정1126

-서울남부지방법원 2013.02.21 2012고정4139

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2015.11.06 2015고단544