beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Although each statement made by the victim F, H, and I, consistent with the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), is reliable, the lower court determined otherwise that each of the above statements was not reliable, and thus acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) On June 16, 2016, the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act on the part of the Defendant: (a) whether the Defendant was inside the alcohol house to the victim F (n, 50 years old) located in Ildong-gu, U.S., U.S., Sinsan-si E (hereinafter “G”), with H and I, who drinking alcohol in the car page operated by the Defendant, and was sitting in the side of the Defendant.
“The victim rejected it.”
Then, despite the victim's her her m and her m and her m and her m and her m and her m and her m and her m and her her m and her m and her m and her m and her her m and her her m
2) At the time, at the time, at the place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1) above, Defendant 1 drinking alcoholic beverages together with H and I, as seen above, and the F’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her but
Despite the restriction, the F continued indecent act was committed by force by deceiving her her m and her m and her part.
Accordingly, as the Hashed Had Had Had Had Had Had Had the head of the defendant, the defendant suffered a bodily injury requiring approximately three weeks of treatment.
On July 20, 2016, H was prosecuted for a special injury, and on July 26, 2016, H received a complaint against the Defendant on charges of forced indecent conduct.
Since then, the Defendant demanded H to pay KRW 100 million in return for the agreement, but H did not comply with it, and F did not receive a large amount of agreement from H in order to receive a large amount of agreement from H and escape from suspicion of indecent conduct.