logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.09.13 2018노234
강제추행치상등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statements by the victim of the misunderstanding of facts and the video of damaged pictures, the defendant suffered bodily injury by coercioning the victim and assaulting the person working at the same time, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

For the first time, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged with the violation of the former Act on the Injury by Indecent Acts and the Violation of the Labor Standards Act against the Defendant as the primary facts charged, and applied for the permission of modification of the indictment with the content of the facts charged as stated in the corresponding part, “Assault” in the name of the ancillary crime, and “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” in the preliminary application law, and the same was added to the subject of the judgment by the court.

As seen later, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained, since some of the ancillary facts charged are found guilty.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument that the prosecutor's primary charge is erroneous is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is determined.

3. Judgment as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the main charge)

A. The court below rendered the judgment of the court below as to "not guilty part"

2. Based on the detailed circumstances indicated in the item of “determination”, “The sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant saw the victim’s chest with his/her finger by driving the victim’s breast, leading the lower part of the hand floor to the chest of the damaged person’s chest, and thereby, the victim injured the victim on the upper chest.

arrow