logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2019.01.15 2018고단280
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(업무상위력등에의한추행)
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the CPC bank in Daegu-gu B and the fifth floor, and the victim D (n.e., the age of 19) was a person who had worked as a part-time student from July 2017 to September 9, 2017.

1. On July 2017, the Defendant committed an indecent act by committing the crime of Habman from around 18:40 to 19:10 on July 2017, 201, following the Victim’s Habing away from the said PC holder and her hand, and her hand carried the victim’s shoulder with his/her finger, thereby committing an indecent act.

2. From July 2017 to August 2017, the Defendant committed an indecent act by leading the victim’s shoulder, who was in the PC from July 12:00 to early August 16:00, 201, the Defendant committed an indecent act by inducing the victim’s shoulder, who was in the PC as a knife in the PC from July 2017 to early 12:0 to early 16:00.

3. On July 2017 through August 2017, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her herst her

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act three times by force on the victim under the supervision of the defendant due to employment relationship.

After the last trial date, the defense counsel newly presented an argument that the facts charged in this case were not specified.

However, in light of the nature of the crime and the statement of the victim, the facts charged in this case stated the same manner as the facts charged in each judgment specified the time, place, method, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts charged from other facts.

Although the day of each indecent act in this case is not written as a specified day, the scope is limited, and it cannot be deemed that there was an obstacle to the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense as well as to sufficiently specify the facts charged by other matters indicated.

Therefore, it is true.

arrow