2017Gohap77 Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Acts, etc.)

A

Maintenance heat (prosecution), transmission democracy (public trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney C, D

November 2, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won. If the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

To order the defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Criminal facts

The Defendant currently served as the principal of the FF High School E in Ulsan-gun E, and was a deliberation teacher at the time of each of the following crimes:

1. Crimes against victims G;

(a) Crimes committed during the period from May 2015 to June of the same year;

From May 2015 to June 201 of the same year, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the said victim, who was a juvenile, by force, by rhymizing three times the part of the instant victim’s hub, etc., i.e., the instant victim G (one-year old-age-age-age-age-age-age-age-age-age-age-age-of-one-year-age-age-age-of-the-job-age-age-age-of-day-age-age-age-of-the-job-age-age-age-age-of-day-age-age-of

(b) Crimes committed between B and B during the winter of the same year from 2015;

From B to B in 2015, at around 13:30 on the same year, the Defendant attempted to commit an indecent act against the above victim, a juvenile, by force, on the second floor of the F High School located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the second floor of the FJ in Ulsan-gun, namely, “the victim G will come to know” and “G will come to know.” However, the Defendant attempted to commit an indecent act against the above victim by force. However, the Defendant did not escape from the job and attempted to commit an indecent act.

2. Crimes against victims H;

On December 2013, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the above victim, a juvenile, by force, by force, such as continuing to write down the right booming 2 to 3rd class of F High School in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, which was located in the first grade and third grade class of F High School in Ulsan-gun, and the victim He (the 16th age age at that time) who was seated in the rear part of the classroom during the test and supervision, in his/her hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of G, H and I; 1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel of the respective statements (Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14) G, H, and I

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant does not commit an indecent act against the victims as stated in each criminal facts.

2. Determination

In a case where the statements of the witness, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, they shall not be rejected without permission unless there is any separate evidence that is objectively deemed objectively and objectively insufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7403, Sept. 9, 2010). In this case, there is a victim’s investigative agency and legal statement as evidence directly corresponding to each of the facts charged in the judgment, and the victim’s statement in the following reasons (the facts and circumstances are recognized by the evidence adopted by this court) are deemed to have credibility to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt. Accordingly, each of the facts charged in the judgment is proven guilty. Accordingly, the defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A. As to the crime committed against the victim G

1) The victim G consistently maintained the statements that correspond to paragraph 1 of the facts stated in the judgment in an investigative agency and a court (which appears to be partially inconsistent, but is to be separately examined in paragraphs (1) and (b) of the following 3). The victim G does not have any alternative in relation to the objective facts in its statement (which may be deemed partially inconsistent) and (c) of the following 2).

2) The relation to the crime of non-explosion between May 2015 and June 2015 (the crime No. 1-A)

가) 피해자 G는 울산 성폭력피해자 통합지원센터(일명 '해바라기 센터', 이하 '해바라기 센터'라 한다)에서 피해 당시의 상황을 구체적이고 현장감 있게 묘사하였는데 (증거기록 19쪽), 이는 직접 경험하지 않고서는 특별히 꾸며내기 힘든 정황이라고 보인다. 나) 또한 피해자 G가 ① 위 해바라기 센터에서 "그 때, 놀고 있었던 친구들이 누구인지도 잘 기억이 안 나요. 그렇지만 선생님(피고인)이 갑자기 저의 등을 쓰다듬어 기분 나빴던 상황은 아직도 기억이 나요", "(피고인이) 여러 번 등을 쓰다듬었는데, 이렇게 자세하게 상황 설명을 할 수 있는 것은 한 번밖에 기억이 안 나요"라고 진술한 점(증거기록 19, 20쪽), ② 법정에서도 "(당시 신체 접촉이 있던 피해자가 또 있었는지 여부는) 잘 기억이 나지 않아요. 저는 제 일만 기억나고요"라고 진술한 점(피해자 G에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 3쪽) 등에 비추어 보면, 피해자 G는 기억나지 않는 부분은 솔직하게 기억이 나지 않는다고 말하면서 실제로 자신이 경험하고 기억하고 있는 바를 진술한 것으로 보인다.

C) On the grounds that the Defendant’s career curriculum is not a major subject, but a part of the students, etc. are relatively free in a relatively free atmosphere, such as the Defendant’s entrance-related data or records, and was given by viewing images related to educational broadcasts (EBS). However, the Defendant appears to have been able to commit an indecent act against the victim G by sufficiently returning to the class.

D) Although the J, from May 2015 to down to down from back to back, 'from back to back from back to back,' the time from back to back to back to back, she took the lessons. However, even though she stated that there was no witness to the fact of damage (2, 3 pages of the record of the examination of the J), even if she was seated on the side of the fact of damage, she is merely a third party and it is practically difficult for J to view and memory all the activities that occurred to her, and thus, the above statement does not adversely affect the credibility of her G statement that conforms to this part of the crime.

3) Related to the crime of inter-scoping and unscoping between B and B in 2015 (the crime No. 1-b)

A) On this part of the criminal facts of this part, the victim G stated that ① the victim G had the second floor corridor along with the family-friendly K, but the defendant was rejected by having the victim G known K first of all, and the defendant stated that "G would know about the victim G," and then, the defendant tried to know about the victim G, "I would know about it" (20 pages of the evidence record). ② The court stated that the defendant first told the victim G to be informed only once before submitting and allowing access to the evidence records, and that the victim G would not want to do so, it is inconsistent with the victim's statement about the order of time at the time of damage (3 pages of the record of the examination of the victim's witness).

B) However, the above circumstance appears to be not to be such a degree of harm to the victim G from the time of damage to the point of view that the difference naturally revealed in the process of statements made by the victim G in accordance with his/her memory at the time when about one-year period from the time of damage, and as long as the subject matter of the criminal facts in this part is the fact that the Defendant tried to use the victim G from her memory, but the victim G avoided it, the victim G consistently stated it from the investigative agency to the court, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the credibility of the entire victim G

C) In this part of the criminal facts, K, which was identified as together with the victim G, said that there was no witness to this part of the criminal facts in the telephone call with the police (see evidence No. 7, which was submitted by the defendant) (see evidence No. 118). However, according to the victim G’s legal statement, the victim G stated the name of K in the currency with K after being investigated by the Seaba Center, and after being examined by the victim G, the victim G stated the name of K in the currency with K, and therefore, K was entered in the school’s name, whether or not the name was stated, and whether or not it was the school student’s name, and the telephone was cut off with the victim’s age of 3 years in F High School as the victim’s age, and it appears that he was unable to bear the above position because K was involved in this case in the situation where the defendant was the principal of F High School.

4) On the other hand, around August 2016, the mother of the victim G, 1 had been aware of the fact that L students, who were in the first grade higher than the victim G, were sexual indecent act by the Defendant from L’s friendship, and immediately reported the FF high school alumni conference. At the alumni conference, the Defendant, who completed the candidate registration in the school principal recruitment system implemented at FF high schools, filed a suspicion of sexual indecent act on the part of the school juristic person. Ultimately, the investigation conducted by the school juristic person, was concluded, and the Defendant was appointed as the principal of FF high school around September 27, 2016. The Defendant and the defense counsel filed a complaint that the victim G was victimized by the Defendant’s sexual indecent act after the Defendant became the principal of the school, and the Defendant asserted that his damage was inflicted only on the first day of November 2016, and that the Defendant’s mother and the head of the FF high school opposed to the Defendant’s broadcast, N. N. and P. news, and the Defendant’s principal of the school.

However, the issue of whether a defendant is appointed as the principal of the F High School from the standpoint of F High School and her mother, not from the perspective of F High School and I, is not an important interest. In order to prevent the principal from appointing the principal of the defendant, the victim G himself/herself, who is a minor, has made a false statement of sex offense against himself/herself or made a false statement of sex offense to his/her minor father, is low. Moreover, there is no circumstance to see that the victim G and her mother, who is a minor, has the principal of the defendant. Above all, there is no circumstance to see that the victim G still is the principal of the F High School, and criminal case itself is a victim G or her mother is still in attendance at the F High School where the defendant is the principal of the school, and there is no benefit, and it is rather natural that the victim G and I would not suffer any disadvantage not only in the ordinary school life, but also in the course of entrance into the school. However, the victim G did not report the fact of damage to the broadcasting station.

5) In addition, Fhigh schools are conducting a fact-finding survey on school violence every semester, and in the relevant questionnaire [1-1-1], questions are made as to whether a student has suffered indecent act by compulsion or sexual assault, but it seems that the student who responded to the purport that the above item was located from March 2015 to October 2016 is no longer free (see the evidence 3-1-4 of the evidence submitted by the defendant). However, considering the fact that the victim G is a female juvenile, and the victim G was working as a teacher of a school that conducts the above investigation, it is deemed that the victim would not have been able to affirm the credibility of the victim G statement based on the results of the fact-finding survey on school violence, and it is not reasonable to deny the credibility of the victim G statement based on the results of the above fact-finding survey.

B. As to the crime committed against the victim H

1) The victim H has consistently been replaced by the statement corresponding to paragraph 2 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment in an investigative agency and in a court (which appears to be partially inconsistent, but is to be separately examined in the following sub-paragraph 2), and the content of the statement does not exist as a substitute (which may be deemed partially inconsistent, but is to be examined separately in sub-paragraphs 2 and 3).

2) On November 10, 2016, when the victim H was first investigated at the Seaba Center, the time of damage was stated as "after completing the internal test in B/L in 2014 (Evidence Records 32 pages, telephone calls of the police demanding a specific time of crime on November 21, 2016)." Since the victim H changed the time of damage to "the end of February 2013" on January 31, 2017, it is recognized that the victim H prepared a written statement of change to "the end of February 2013" and submitted it to the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office (Evidence Records 138 pages). However, around November 2016, the victim H appears to be unable to consistently state the facts that the victim could not have relied on the victim's actual credibility during the investigation agency's statement that was already examined by the victim F/L at the time of his/her graduation and that it could not depend on the fact that the victim could not rely on the victim's own time of damage.

3) The victim H stated that the Defendant committed an indecent act, such as using his rhythm and rhym of the classroom. The victim H stated that the Defendant committed an indecent act, such as using his rhym and rhym of the classroom. From the 2nd class 3rd class of the first class class in the end of February 2013 when the victim H was employed, the Defendant was under regular supervision, and Q was under direct supervision (refer to the evidence 4, 19 evidence submitted by the Defendant). According to the FF High School’s “regular delivery of the test and supervision consideration”, the supervising supervisor is located behind the classroom, and the supervising supervisor is located behind the classroom (refer to the evidence 5 evidence submitted by the Defendant by the Defendant). Although the Defendant did not attend part of the victim H’s statement on the premise that the Defendant was under direct supervision after the classroom, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was under witness supervision at the time of the trial.

4) Q, which was entered under the supervision at the time, stated in the court that there was no record of the Defendant’s speech or behavior identical to the facts constituting a crime in this part (4 pages of the witness examination record of Q), and submitted a written statement to the effect that R, which was the immediately back number of the victim H, was not an witness of the facts constituting a crime in this part (see, e.g., evidence 8, 21 submitted by the Defendant).

However, it is deemed that Q is likely that the student had raised an objection against the issue of examination, etc., and according to the victim H’s statement, it appears that Q would be the time when he/she started to walk an OMR card (Evidence 32 pages) after completing the test, and that it was difficult for Q and the directly applicant for the test during the time of the test to memory all the work that occurred to the victim H, who is a third person, from the standpoint of Q and R, who was a direct applicant for the test and directly taking the test, and therefore, the circumstance that Q and R did not witness this part of the crime does not affect the credibility of the victim H’s statement that the circumstance that Q and R did not witness this part of the crime does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

5) Furthermore, the victim H who had already graduated from the FF High School has no interest in whether the Defendant becomes a FF High School or a school principal, and there is no particular reason for the said victim to make a false statement with respect to the Defendant, who is subject to criminal liability for perjury or perjury.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Article 7(5) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the occupation of indecent acts against children and juveniles by force, the selection of fines), Article 7(6), (5) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the attempted offense against children and juveniles by force, the selection of fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act, etc.) against Victims H with a heavier penalty]

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Order to complete programs;

The main sentence of Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. Exemption from an order for disclosure and notification;

Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (in full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, and criminal record; the content of the instant crime; and the anticipated effect and side effect of the disclosure order or disclosure order, the reason for sentencing that the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed or notified (

1. The scope of punishment by law;

10 million won to KRW 45 million

2. The sentencing criteria shall not apply as the range of fines has been selected on the basis of the sentencing criteria.

3. Determination of sentence;

Although the instant crime is in a position to guide and protect the victims who are students as school teachers, there is a high possibility of criticism because it is intended to commit an indecent act or indecent act by force by taking advantage of such position. The Defendant did not merely deny the crime, but rather did not look at the circumstances of the instant case, and rather did not look at the victims’ mistakes. The Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims, and did not make any effort to recover the victims’ damage.

○ favorable circumstances: The degree of the exercise of tangible force and indecent act in the instant crime is not serious, but some attempted crimes were committed.

○ The sentence shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive, means, results, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, including the above unfavorable circumstances, favorable circumstances, and all the kinds of sentencing conditions indicated in the present arguments and records.

Registration of Personal Information

Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive on each crime in the judgment, the defendant is a person subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and is obligated to submit personal information to the competent agency pursuant to Article 43

The presiding judge, a judge and a citizen;

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Yong-young