2016Gohap101 Rape, Similar Rape, Indecent Act by compulsion

A

Admonishment (prosecutions), Lee Young-young, and Gangwon-gu (Public trial)

Law Firm B, Attorneys C, and D

Law Firm E, Attorneys F, G

Law Firm H, Attorney I

J Law Firm, Attorneys K

August 18, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

On April 4, 2016, the Defendant is the actual owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan L Building, and the victim M(n, 37 years of age) is the lessee who leased the 7th floor of the above building from the Defendant. The victim N(n, 64 years of age) was the mother of the victim M, leading the victim M to an indoor decoration by leasing the above building.

(a) Rape and similar rape with a victim N;

(i) rape;

At around 22:00 on May 8, 2016, the Defendant, while telephone conversations with the victim on the second floor of the above LA building, has to discuss rapidly as a problem of stedra, air conditioner failure and artificial test.In addition, at the time of the removal of stedra in the past 0, there are many problems in the construction cost, and it is urgent to discuss promptly. At the latest, stera in the top office." After inducing the victim into the above office, the victim was locked the door and neck of the body of the victim entering the office, and the victim was not hurd. Ma. Ma. Do not so. Nad. Mad. Mad. Mad. Bad, the victim did not hurd without permission, and the victim was out of his body and hurd, and the victim was out of the victim's body without being able to open the victim's body. Then, the victim was out of his own body.

Accordingly, the defendant raped the victim's resistance by suppressing the victim's resistance.

2) Similar rape in April 8, 2016

With the knowledge that soundproofing materials, which are construction materials, are necessary to construct the 7th floor of the above L building leased by the victim’s father, the Defendant: (a) stated, “I would bring about if you look at Daejeon because he has come to do so; (b)”; (c) around 10:0 on April 8, 2016, the Defendant moved the victim into the second floor of the single house located in Daejeon Dong-gu P, with only one hand, and then laid the victim’s chest back the victim’s chest back from the back, and then laid the victim’s chest back to the 5th floor, while leaving the victim’s chest back to the 5th floor, the Defendant putting the victim’s chest down, who was able to resist and open the storm, and brought about the victim’s face rapidly to the victim’s left part, and brought about the victim’s kidy by leaving the victim’s kid, thereby making the victim’s kiding.”

Accordingly, the defendant had been raped after suppressing the victim's resistance.

3) Similar rape in May 16, 2016

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the 10th floor resting room of the above L Building, the Defendant: (b) induced the victim to a resting room on a ten-story basis; (c) induced the victim to a resting room on a one-time basis; (d) obstructed the door of the resting room; and (e) made the victim in a manner consistent with the victim’s entrance; (d) the victim “if the victim is to move to a friendly fe, rings, shots, kis, and kis,” and (e) added the Defendant to the wall to the wall, thereby threatening the victim to go against the Defendant, and threatening the victim, and put the victim into the part of the victim’s drinking part.

Accordingly, the defendant had been raped after suppressing the victim's resistance.

(b) Indecent acts by compulsion against the victim M;

1) On April 2016, the Defendant, at the office of the 7th floor of the above LA building, told the victim as if he were to terminate the lease contract. On the 7th floor of the above 7th floor, the Defendant was asked at the victim’s blood type, study time, etc. with the victim’s blood type, etc. as he/she was seated in the 7th floor, and asked at the victim’s blood type, study time, etc. with the victim’s blood type, etc., in his/her hands, she used the victim’s head car, and used the knife and the knife part less than the knifs

2) On April 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened the victim’s 7th floor and 10th floor of the above L building on several occasions under the pretext of entering the interior construction problem in the elevator elevator in the building; (b) opened the victim’s strings the elevator several times; and (c) stated that “the victim’s her eye is not visible; (d) her eye is divided into the number of floors; and (e) the victim’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son was equal to the above son’s son.

3) 피고인은 2016. 5. 7. 10:00경 서울 종로구 Q에 있는 'R' 커피숍에서 위 L빌딩에 입주하는 문제로 피해자와 대화를 나누던 중 피해자의 얼굴에 자신의 얼굴을 가까이 들이대며 "애기야. 너는 뒤에 앉은 젊은 여자들처럼 찢어진 청바지를 입어서는 안된다. 부자되게 만들어줄테니 내 말만 잘 들어라. 너는 내 마음을 녹인다. 나는 다른 사람에게는 소리만 지르는데 너와 있으면 편하다. 너는 살만 빼면 된다. 내가 공간을 만들어 줄테니 운동을 해봐라."고 말하는 중간 중간에 피해자의 귓속에 입김을 불어넣고, 피해자의 귓불에 입술을 대었다 떼었다 하기를 수차례 반복하였다.

4) 피고인은 2016. 5. 7. 15:30경 서울 중구 S에 있는 T 앞길을 U 1톤 포터 트럭을 직접 운전하며 가다가 잠시 신호대기로 정차하던 중 뒤쪽을 보는 척하다가 조수석에 앉은 피해자의 어깨에 손을 올리며 목덜미를 주물러 이에 깜짝 놀란 피해자가 "뭐하는 거냐"라면서 소리를 지르자 손을 빼는 척하면서 피해자의 왼쪽 가슴을 움켜쥐었고, 피해자가 피고인의 손을 쳐내자 이후 계속하여 손을 뻗어 피해자의 허벅지와 음부 부위를 만졌다.

Accordingly, the defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act four times.

2. Determination

A. Unauthorized assertion of facts charged

The Defendant asserted that the prosecution against N is unlawful on May 16, 2016 on the ground that the charges of similar rape and indecent act by force against M on April 18, 2016, on the ground that the charges of indecent act by force on April 18, 2016, are sufficiently specified to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime can be distinguished from other facts, and thus, the above assertion is rejected on the grounds that each similar rape and indecent act by force are not limited to those subject to adjudication by the court, or it cannot be deemed that there is an obstacle to the Defendant’s exercise

B. Relevant legal principles

The facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, and the establishment of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the interests of the defendant should be determined even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal. In a case where the evidence constituting the facts charged is practically the victim’s statement, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged solely based on the victim’s statement, the high probative value is required to be sufficiently high enough to doubt the truth and accuracy of the statement. Determination of whether there is such probative value should comprehensively take into account the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the victim’s statement itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012).

C. N: N

1) On April 8, 2016, evidence that correspond to this part of the charges of rape was made by N's investigative agency and this court. The whole purport of the statement was as follows. Marshall enter the L building lease contract, and the Defendant was to make the music room soundproof work possible if the soundproof materials in Daejeon X department store are dried. The Defendant, together with the Defendant, was able to take off the KTX until he was discharged, and she was dried up to the second floor of the commercial building of a detached house. The Defendant did not have dried up and dried up the string and string off the string of the string and string off the string, and string up the string off and string up the string up the string.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence adopted by this Court, it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the credibility of N’s statements.

① At around 08:30, the Defendant and N, starting from the Seoul Station, arrived at around 09:29 on the discharge from the military service (i.e., 391 pages), and arrived at X department stores riding a taxi at around 09:45. The Defendant received telephone from 09:54:14, and called up to 09:5:11 (i.e., 808 pages), around 10:09, the Defendant sent telephone to Y, who is a X department store transformer facility operator, and paid coffee value at the Zc 20th, around 10:20. Accordingly, similar rape as charged in the facts charged, can be conducted between 09:45 and 09:54, and from 09:10 to 10:45, it appears that the Defendant’s assertion that such rape and the NM made it very short of the Defendant’s assertion that it would cause damage to the YM and the Defendant’s allegation that it would be very doubtful.

② As to the circumstances leading up to the Z coffee shop, Y stated that, unlike the N’s statement in this court, Y parked in X department stores, parked in the vehicle, set up in coffee shop, and met the Defendant and N, and thereafter, Y took the vehicle with the Defendant and N at the time of moving to a restaurant for the occupation-oriented trial. In light of the fact that the distance between the above coffee shop and X department store and the commercial building on the fourth floor is very close, Y is doubtful about the credibility of N’s statement (as the Defendant’s assertion, if the Defendant, as the Defendant claimed, calls to Y to the Z, the time during which the crime of similar rape can be committed is lowered).

③ Since the above fourth floor commercial building had been in the state of public room since 2015 and discharged both water in the pipes to prevent winter and winter, the Defendant was in a state where tap water was not left at the time. As such, the Defendant was suffering from drinking water at the time after committing the crime of similar rape. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s statement was false. At the time, the above building was in the state of public room, and there was no amount of water supply in 2016.

④ The N specified the date of damage as of April 19, 2016 until the filing of the complaint, the statement of damage, and the statement of statement 1, 2, and 3 at the police, and the date of the first, the N made it clear that he/she was aware of his/her family travel since he/she died and was traveling abroad. Furthermore, it was difficult for N and N to have difficulty in receiving the deposit or the test cost paid to the Defendant for the first reason that he/she was not immediately reported to the police after the crime of similar rape was committed. In addition, if N and the Defendant were at the same time in Daejeon on April 8, 2016 and they were at the same time in Daejeon and they were at the same time in Daejeon on other day, it was apparent whether the lease agreement was concluded, but if the first time of rape similar to the facts charged was not concluded, and thus, it is clear whether the lease agreement was concluded and the deposit or the cost of the deposit is still paid.

Therefore, it is insufficient to view that the N’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged without reasonable doubt.

2) Rape N on May 8, 2016, 201: (a) on May 7, 2016, when her husband-friendly child was married to Gwangju, and on May 8, 2016, the Defendant continued to open the L building door at the weekend and opened the call to the Defendant that he was unable to clean and clean, and (b) the Defendant was unable to do so; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant was not able to open the phone at the end of the week; and (d) on the other hand, she opened the phone and opened the phone to the Defendant; and (d) on the other hand, she would have to solve the problem of the human test cost and the human body’s interior. She opened the contact immediately after the rapid arrival. If so, she opened the phone at the time of the Defendant’s arrival, the Defendant was scheduled to close the 9th day by going beyond the Defendant’s complaint to the end of the 19th day and end the me at the latest.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence adopted by this Court, it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the credibility of the N’s statements.

① In the work site prepared by W, which had been engaged in the 7th and 10th floor artificial test, the 7th floor artificial test work was stated as from April 22, 2016 to May 7, 2016, and W stated that M was completed before the director’s error in the board of directors in the L building on May 7, 2016. In light of the foregoing, it is doubtful whether N, Sundays, at the latest time on May 8, 2016, found the Defendant to be mixed, and there was an urgent consultation about the construction cost, human test problem. Moreover, N, around April 8, 2016, stated that N was raped from Daejeon from Defendant on April 2, 2016, and that M, at the latest around May 22, 2016, it was difficult to understand that it was raped from Defendant A, even if there was no late from Defendant A, 200.

② In full view of the Defendant and N’s telephone calls, N calls were posted to Ma on May 8, 2016, around 15:18, 15:22, and around 16:12, at around 16:12, N calls were posted to Defendant in the vicinity of Jongno-gu Seoul AB, Jongno-gu, Seoul. At around 21:05, the Defendant calls from her home to her phone, and at around 21:38, the Defendant was her phone, and the Defendant was her phone from her phone at around 21:38, and the Defendant did not call from her. On the contrary, there was no fact that the Defendant was her phone. Such circumstance is natural, rather than natural, that it is natural to view that the Defendant and N call several times in the process after the Defendant urged or urged N to resolve the problem, such as theme.

③ At around 2016, 5, 01:31 on the following day, the Defendant got a phone call from the L Building (the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was a phone to confirm that N returned well to the house), and N paid taxi expenses of KRW 5,280 on the same day (the 541 pages of the investigation record). According to the above monetary records, N and the Defendant appears to have come to come to come to a close from the luminous area around 21:40, but it is difficult to understand that N and the Defendant was raped with L Building immediately after having come to a luminous area, such as N’s statement, and even after having been raped with the Defendant on May 9, 2016, it was doubtful that N and 12:18:28:16:28 of the Defendant’s phone and 15:28 of the Defendant’s phone, etc. were raped.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the N’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged without reasonable doubt.

3) 2016. 5. 16. 유사강간 N은, 오전 시간에 피고인 등 4 ~ 5명이 양복을 빼입고 L빌딩 로비에 서 있었고, 엘리베이터를 탔더니 다른 사람은 안타고 피고인만 혼자 얼른 따라 탔으며, 10층에 휴게실을 잘 꾸며 놨다고 가보자고 하여 따라갔는데 그 곳 휴게실 안에서 피고인이 성폭행을 시작하였고, 대낮이었고 환하였으며 아무도 없었던 시간도 아니었고 불도 안 꺼져서 용기가 나서, 피고인에게 "개새끼 변태새끼 미친놈 언제까지 이럴 거냐. 나는 더 이상 못 참겠다."고 하였고, 피고인이 벽 쪽으로 밀어붙인 다음에 한쪽 다리를 다리사이에 넣고 손가락을 음부에 집어넣었고 밖에서 부르는 소리가 나서 피고인이 서둘러 나가면서 미안하다는 말을 하였다는 취지로 진술하였다.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence adopted by this Court, it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the credibility of the N’s statements.

① At around 08:11, 08:12 on the day, the Defendant sent N text messages to N, and at around 08:25, N appears to have been in the house at the time, at around 08:36, to 11:40. The Defendant appeared to have been in the house after attending a trial of AC opened at the Seoul Central District Court from around 09:36 to around 11:40. The Defendant, who was traveling from AD, was in the Seocho-dong and diving (70 pages of investigation records) and returned to L Building at around 12:45. On the other hand, N’s telephone content from around 12:29 to around 13:29,00. N appears to have been in the vicinity of L Building. In view of the fact that the Defendant and the Defendant stated that the Defendant and the Defendant were raped, and thus, the Defendant cannot be seen to have made the aforementioned statement that the Defendant and the NO was in a similar setting.

② At the point of time, N made a statement to the effect that it may be seen as 1:30 minutes from the time when the entry into the L building was made. This is because the Defendant changed his statement after proving Albabababa, and thus, the credibility thereof is lower, and the Defendant made a large number of conversations with N and Ebababags on the day, and the N was deposited KRW 4 million in the name of M around 14:03 after he made a false statement (this corresponds to the Defendant’s assertion that the construction price of the Ebabags was adjusted between N and AE) and N’s currency content, and considering the fact that N appears to have existed in the continuous buildings or their nearby areas from 16:46 to 22:29, it is difficult to believe the above statement.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the N’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged without reasonable doubt.

D. As to M:

1) The credibility of the statement

The direct evidence in support of the facts charged by indecent act against M is only M’s investigative agency and this court’s statement (AF’s statement is a professional statement that transferred the fact of injury from M). The mother, on June 9, 2016, filed a complaint against the Defendant on July 3, 2016, and the Defendant was raped, etc. from the Defendant as seen earlier. The N and M are hard to believe all of the N’s statement. The evidence reveals that N and M are multiple conversationss before and after having been subject to non-guilty charges, and discussions on the issue of the instant complaint. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that N and M appears to have discussed, there is considerable reason to doubt the credibility of M’s statement.

2) Specific review

A) Indecent act by compulsion on April 2016, 201

M. On April 15, 2016, the day when the Defendant was forced to commit indecent acts by force, the criminal time is between 19:0 and 20:30, and the Defendant’s lease contract is terminated, and the Defendant was put into the L building at his own lane by telephone around 19:21, and the Defendant entered N, his mother, and went into the L building at one’s own lane, and made a talk in the middle of 20s by suggesting that he had a defect in talking the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence adopted by this Court, it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the credibility of the contents of M’s statement.

On April 15, 2016, at around 19:21, when the Defendant entered the L building, and at around 19:21, at around 8:14:0, the phone was sent to N for about 14 minutes. Meanwhile, at around 18:03, M calls to N around 18:28, in lieu of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, which is in the vicinity of the Egrasium and the annual household, and at around 21:13, at around 21:13, each telephone was sent to N in the Seo-gu, Seoul. In light of the fact that the Defendant and N in a relatively long call, it is difficult to deem that the above Defendant’s phone was called as soon as possible, such as the Defendant’s statement, and that M were in the vicinity of the Dongdong, instead of the end of the day and time, it appears that M and M and N were in the vicinity, and that there is no objective doubt as to whether M and N were in the building itself.

② Around 10:00 to 11:00 on April 15, 2016 in order to cancel a monthly rent contract at an investigative agency, M made a statement that the Defendant was sent to the Defendant by telephone (in the investigation record 2263 pages) and that the Defendant was sent to the Defendant at around 14:07 on this day (in the investigation record 843 pages), and that there was no telephone call between the Defendant and the Defendant (in the investigation record 843 pages). However, around 06:56 on the day, around 07:08, there was no evidence that the Defendant did not confirm the telephone details between the Defendant and N, and there was no other currency equivalent to the above statement.

③ Meanwhile, as between April 15, 2016 and April 17, 2016, the Defendant and M from April 10, 2016 to April 17, 2016, where M paid lease deposit, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant and M, N, and N were in the vicinity of L building at the same time, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant and M, and N were in the middle of April 2014.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that only M’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is proven without reasonable doubt.

B) Indecent acts by compulsion on May 7, 2016: around 15:30

M, in the past 0 neighboring music rooms, directors of L building were in the same way with the Defendant from around 16:30, and the Defendant transported the truck drivened by the Defendant from around 2 to 3 times, and first, there was no indecent act, and last, around 15:30, there was an indecent act by the Defendant under the suspension of her name when transporting blano, etc. into LA building, and it was stated that he was parked in LA building.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence adopted by this Court, it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubts as to the credibility of the contents of M’s statement.

① At around 14:33, at around 15:09, at around 15:09, and around 15:24, the Defendant got from each telephone to AH (the Defendant appears to be an employee of the Defendant). After that, the Defendant, at around 15:40, at around 16:40, at around 16:24, at around 5:16:49, at around 17:33, at around 15:22, at around 15:23, at around 15:41, at around 16:19, at around 16:19, and at around 16:2, at around 16:30, at around 16:3, at around 15:41, and at around 16:19, at around 16:14, the Defendant was able to make a telephone at around 16:5,000, and the Defendant was able to make a statement by force.

② AH made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was unable to transport the skin by driving a truck on his own because the thalth of the AI used the thalth of the thalth of the AI, and that the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the thalth of the th

On the other hand, at around 14:33, around 14:34, around 15:04, AH sent a text message to the Defendant, “AH 15:44, on the other hand, sent a text message to the Defendant, “AH was on the part of the transport personnel during the transport of the Pianno report,” and at around 15:48, the Defendant was on the phone (for investigation records, 822, 1,253 pages, 1, 253 pages, and 20 evidence). In full view, AH was on the part of the pian used car driven by AAI and transported the Pianno into a L building. At that time, the Defendant was on the L building, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, other than M’s statement, directly transported the Pianno into the L building, together with the reported M on the truck.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that only M’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is proven without reasonable doubt.

C) Indecent acts by compulsion on April 18, 2016 and indecent acts by compulsion on May 7, 2016

(1) M’s statement

On April 18, 2016, M = 12:00 to 14:00 on April 18, 2016, the Defendant was indecent act as described in the facts charged at the time when the Defendant was at fault in the elevator of the L building. The Defendant made a phone call to himself or N in the tegrative doping system, and transferred the deposit amount to the Internet as part of the L building, and the Defendant transferred the deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the AJ branch of the Bank, and the Defendant was informed of the AJ branch of the Bank and transferred the additional transfer of KRW 15,00,000 to the AJ branch, and then the village bus was returned to the AJ branch, and it was stated that the indecent act of indecent act was committed before transfer to the AJ branch and that it was not memory.

At around 10:00 on May 7, 2016, M made a phone call to the Defendant by having a director in a music room at the music room at 0:0,00 a.m. to arrive at 7:0 a.m. per day, and he made a phone call to the Defendant, and the Defendant arrived at her, and the Defendant entered R with a defect in coffee and entered r, and the Defendant was forced to make a indecent act by compulsion as described in the facts charged.

(2) The criminal defendant and M, etc.

(7) On April 18, 2016, M sent a call at Jung-gu, Jung-gu, 11:50, and around 12:16, M sent KRW 10 million out of the deposit to the Internet, at around 12:29, Jongno-gu, and at around 12:35, transferred KRW 15 million out of the deposit at the AJ branch of the Bank in Jongno-gu (2,012 pages) (i.e., investigation records). At around 13:51, M sent a telephone in the vicinity of the L building and was in the vicinity of the house at around 14:12.56. The Defendant was called at around 11:56, and at around 12:53, N was called to the Defendant in the vicinity of the L building in the name of the corporation, at around 13:20,000, KRW 15 million in the name of the corporation in the name of the L building.

(B) On May 7, 2016, MM arrived at a nearby music room around 07:18, and the Defendant posted a telephone around 07:48.

At around 07:20, the Defendant posted a telephone to AH, and until around 08:46, the Defendant settled KRW 6,600 as T-si at around 08:58. AH around 07:26, around 08:13, around M, around 09:05, the Defendant sent each telephone to M at around 09:05, around 09:16 (Investigation Records 1,252). On the other hand, AH stated that, around 10:00, he moved sound and props into L-building along with a report on a car driven by M.

(3) Determination

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant and M did not appear in the same place during the time when the Defendant stated that M was indecent act on April 18, 2016 and May 7, 2016, the Defendant and M did not appear to have been at the same time (However, in the case of May 7, 2016, it appears that the Defendant and M did not appear to have been at the 10th market price). However, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s statement of M was in a circumstance to suspect its credibility, and as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe M’s statement that it was indecent act by the Defendant on April 7, 2016 and May 7, 2016 from the Defendant on May 2, 2016. In full view of the fact that it is relatively specific and probable that M’s statement was made together with the Defendant at the time, it is insufficient to deem that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent reasonable and reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is judged not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty is published under Article 58

The presiding judge, judges, and the Yellow Constitution

Judges Jong-jin

Judges Kim Jae-han