logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.26 2015고단3806
강제추행등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 03:00 on July 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) provided two Defendant’s daily activities and meals at “A” restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul; (b) provided that even if there remains a reflect, the Defendant still requested the victim D who is an employee to give his/her consent; and (c) provided the victim with his/her remaining half of his/her consent.

“A” shall be the victim’s “YYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

d) whether money has been raised;

The victim openly insultingd the victim by openly booming the public, such as “the site for width,” etc.

2. The Defendant forced indecent act, at the time, at a place under the above paragraph (1) above, insulting the victim D (e.g., 51 years of age) and attempted to take out from the victim, and attempted to commit an indecent act against the victim by blocking the front of the Defendant, and the victim was aware of the victim’s intention to force the victim to commit an indecent act on his part, and the victim was hicked with the victim’s hand, and the victim was hicked with the victim’s hand, and then hicked the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Statement made in D during the police interrogation protocol for the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. E statements;

1. On-site CCTV CDs [i.e., the defense counsel made the statement as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the defendant, but it is argued that the offense of insult is not established due to the lack of performance. According to the evidence mentioned above and the testimony of the witness F of the defendant, at the time when the defendant made the statement as described in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the defendant, E was an employee of the restaurant other than the defendant and the victim, and the above E was not in a relationship of kinship with the victim or in a special relationship with the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3540, Sept. 15, 2005). Some of them were the same.

arrow