logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.08.24 2018고단2022
강제추행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 20, 2017, around 22:41, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act by force against the victim D (20 years) who was an employee of Seongdong-gu Seoul, and returned to the Defendant’s side as the Defendant’s side was calculated; and (b) committed an indecent act by force against the victim by exposing his/her own hand to her son’s her tam.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. 성추 행사건 관련 사진, CCTV 영상 파일 [ 피고인 및 변호인은, 피고인이 사건 당시 격려 차원 또는 친근감의 표시로 피해자의 엉덩이 부근을 손으로 툭 친 것일 뿐, 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 피해자의 엉덩이를 주물러 피해자를 강제로 추행한 사실이 없다고 주장한다.

However, in full view of each of the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has jurisdiction over the victim, such as the facts stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant.

Since the victim has consistently made a specific and consistent statement in an investigative agency about the form and method of indecent act and the situation before and after the prosecution, it is difficult to find out the credibility of the victim's statement, and otherwise, there is no other circumstance to reject the credibility of the victim's statement.

Even if the defendant and the injured person are the same male, the act of taking custody of the victim's tam against the victim's will can be evaluated as an indecent act that causes sexual humiliation and aversion to the general public and infringes on the victim's sexual freedom.

Although the Defendant asserts that it is a behavior with an encouragement vehicle or pro-friendly mark, in light of the body and degree of conduct, the response of the victim immediately after the CCTV image can be confirmed, etc., the Defendant’s intentional conduct is also amply recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 298 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 298 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Order to complete a program;

arrow