Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) by the prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim on the first time of November 2013, which was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The punishment of 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unfair.
B. Defendant (1) did not commit any indecent act against the victim as to forced indecent act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found part of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The misunderstanding of the facts as to the act of injury and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant, first of all, was involved in the crime of aiding and injuring the victim, and there was no fact that the victim was spawned, or spawnd and spathd with the victim as indicated in the facts charged.
In addition, the defendant's act falls under the defense of a political party because it is only an inevitable defense against the victim's act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defense of a party, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, that the victim G was forced to commit an indecent act by the Defendant at his own house around November 3, 2013 or around 14:00 to 15:00 of the same month at the police station.
The prosecutor stated that he was forced to commit an indecent act during the foregoing period.
The court stated that the above time was guaranteed in the court of original trial, and H made the defendant's work on November 3, 2013 and the fourth day of the same month at the court of original instance.
The defendant stated that he was engaged in work at the time and the H's court's statement in the court below according to the work log.