beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 28, 2020 to March 19, 2021.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C (hereinafter “C”)
On October 17, 2005, the Ministry of Justice is the legal couple who reported the marriage on October 17, 2005, and there is D’s E and F’s G.
The defendant is the workplace master of C, who is the plaintiff's spouse, and commits unlawful acts to C by taking advantage of the workplace master's position.
2) The defendant's improper act is that the defendant used his social and economic status to engage in C and illegal conduct.
The Supreme Court held that in the crime of sexual intercourse with a supervisor or the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a crime by force, etc. on duty), the term "power" refers to the sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will, and is not tangible, intangible or intangible, it is possible to use not only the assault and intimidation but also the social, economic and political status or authority of the offender.
The issue of whether a person has sexual intercourse with another person by force shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content and degree of the tangible power exercised, the status of the person who committed such act, or the type of the authority or authority of the person who committed such act, the age of the victim, the relationship before the offender and the injured person, the circumstances leading to such act, the specific form of act, and the circumstances at the time of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do4818, Aug. 23, 2007; 2012Do1029, Apr. 26, 2012).
In addition, the act of indecent act includes cases where the body of force is deemed an indecent act, and the power in this case does not require that the victim's free will would be practically controlled, and the indecent act would objectively cause sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and go against the good moral sense (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2506 delivered on January 23, 1998).
C was the head of the work team and the defendant was the head of the center.
C-. The defendant