(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.20 2015노1946 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.20 2015노1946

강제추행등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The statement of the victim that the defendant was forced to commit an indecent act by the defendant from the summary of the grounds for appeal is reliable, and the victim's forced indecent act is resisted against the facts of the indecent act and demands the police to enter the house of the victim can be deemed as infringing upon the victim's house against the victim's will. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts is erroneous.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if the defendant is suspected of guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, it is difficult to believe that the statement at the police station, which is a direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged of the instant case, of the instant case, was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The facts charged in this case were found not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the reasoning of the court below and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim's statement at the police station around May 22, 2015, despite the non-conformity with the victim's statement.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutors.

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 8. 21. 선고 2001도2823 판결

-대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005도8675 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.06.25 2015노392

-서울고등법원 2020.09.24 2020노1322

-광주지방법원 2016.01.20 2015노796

-대구고등법원 2018.09.05 2018노162

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노1888