logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노2052
협박등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. On May 22, 2016, the Defendant misunderstanding the fact (involuntary indecent act part) was frightened with C’s her her son while on the road with the victim C on May 2, 2016. However, this cannot be deemed an indecent act by neglecting the Defendant’s her son’s her son’s her son’s her her son’s her son’s son’s her son’s her son’s her son’s her son’s son

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of forced indecent act among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to a fine of 3 million won or more and to an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the defendant and his/her defense counsel held that the defendant's act of maring the victim C does not constitute an indecent act or did not have the intention to commit a forced indecent act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The court below asserted that ① the defendant filed a complaint against the victim at the time, ② the defendant's statement was based on the defendant's statement, and whether the victim is ‘dward' after the defendant's action

(3) A temporary compromise with the victim, as alleged by the Defendant, was made in a state of temporary compromise (124 pages of the investigation records).

Even if at home, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act was forced to commit an indecent act with the intent to commit an act with the intent to commit a crime, and that the defendant and the defense counsel did not accept the assertion of the defendant and the defense counsel.

The following circumstances established by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the victim from the investigative agency to the lower court.

arrow