2014Gohap296 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (13 years of age);

Indecent Conducts such as Adult Fraudulent Means, etc., Special Treatment on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes

Violation of the law of Kameras(Samera Use Screening), violence, intimidation, coercion

A

Masung(Court)(Court)(Court of Second Instance), Kim Yong-deok, Shin Byung-man(Court of Second Instance)(Court of Second Instance)

Law Firm B

Attorney C

June 5, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program 40 hours for 40 hours. Of the facts charged in this case, each coercion listed in No. 21 and No. 31 of the Schedule of Crimes, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, etc.) and intimidation as stated in No. 39 shall be notified publicly of the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Criminal facts

From November 1, 2005 to January 31, 2013, the Defendant was the coaches of the female deaf-gu of Daejeon elementary school located in Daejeon, and the victim F, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, and N were the players of the said E-school female deaf-gu, female deaf-gu, who were under the Defendant’s instruction.

1. Violence;

On March 21, 2011, from March 28, 2011 to March 28, 2011, the Defendant assaulted the victim by considering the victim F's head part of the victim F(n, 11 years of age) as the key to the telecom.

In addition, from that to that time from that time, the Defendant assaulted victims 19 times over 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 to 28, 35, 36, and 42 of the annexed List of Crimes.

2. A violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts, such as deceptive schemes against minors under the age of 13) committed an indecent act against the victim under the age of 13 by taking advantage of the fact that the victim F (n) was unable to resist to the defendant due to the relationship with the defendant under the guidance of the deaf-gu from around the first half of 201, the victim F (n't.e., the age of 11) was under the direction of the defendant, and said victim was under the control of the defendant."

In addition, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victims under the age of 13 by force over 10 times, such as the statement Nos. 2, 3, 15, 29, 302, 32, 37, 38, 41, and 43 of the List of Crimes from that time until 2012.

3. Forced;

On May 201, the Defendant, at the above E elementary school gymnasiums, sent an attitude that the victim would pose a danger and injury to the victim, such as punishing the victim, if the victim refuses to follow the direction after pressing the gymnasium on the ground that it was during self-training, and forced the victim F (the age of 11) to be exempted from all clothes and running the gymnasium, by intimidation.

In addition, the Defendant forced the victims to perform an unobligatory act seven times, such as the entry Nos. 4, 5, 14, 17, 23, 34, and 40 of the Schedule of Crimes, from that time to that time from that time until B, 2012.

4. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (ameras and photographing them);

On July 26, 2011, at the shower room of the above E Elementary School Sports Center, the Defendant took shower using his mobile phone and taken the victim H (10 years old) from his body with a photograph, and “in the event that it is not possible for the Defendant to take advantage of the type of male and female fright competition, it will transmit or spread to the Internet site or others,” and then, the Defendant taken the victim’s body against his will that may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame by using a device with similar function as a camera.

In addition, the Defendant took photographs of the body of the victims who could cause sexual humiliations or shames, and threatened them against their will, using devices with similar functions, such as the attached list Nos. 12, 19, 25, and 33.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses and each legal statement in P;

1. The statements of witnesses K and L in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G, F, H, I, L, N, and M;

1. Statement by the prosecution against G, H, L, I, K, J, and F;

1. Each police statement of F, G, H, I, K, L, N, M, Q, R, and S;

1. Application of photographs (E elementary school gymnasiums and accommodation), photographs, motion picture CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Article 7(5) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 298 of the Criminal Act (the point of coercion against minors under the age of 13), Article 324 of the Criminal Act (the point of coercion), Article 13(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intimidation)

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Mutual Crimes of Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.) as stated in Article 12, 19, 25, and 33 of the List of Crimes]

3. Selection of punishment;

Each of the crimes of assault, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts, such as Fraudulent Means, etc. by a minor under the age of 13), violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use and photographing of Camers, etc.)

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes listed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and Article 32 of the same Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of indecent conduct, such as deceptive schemes against minors under the age of 13)

5. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

6. Order to complete programs;

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); the assertion and determination of defendants and defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

1. As to the assault in Attached Table No. 36

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant did not assault the victim as stated in No. 36 of the List of Crimes.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence, it can be recognized that the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in No. 36 of the Crime List in the judgment of the defendant. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is rejected.

(1) A victim L is consistently making statements in compliance with the above criminal facts from investigative agencies to this court.

(2) It is difficult to find out that a person in trust with the police and the prosecutorial investigation with respect to L was present at the time of the victim’s testimony, and that there was any question leading to any suppression situation or response during the statement process.

③ The victims, including the victims L, graduated from the E elementary school in which the Defendant was deaf-gu and entered the middle school. The victims were asked other students whether the victims committed a sexual indecent act, etc. as indicated in the judgment against the Tmiddle Sports Teachers. Accordingly, the victims and their parents confirmed the victims of the damage and reported the Defendant to the police. In light of the above report on the damage and the developments leading up to the investigation, etc., it is difficult to see that L made a false report and statement in order to punish the Defendant, and there is no particular reason or ground to know the Defendant.

④ The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the credibility of the victim’s statement is nonexistent since U.S. or V, who stated that the victim had observed the above facts, stated that the victim did not have any assault against the victim at the time when the victim stated that the victim did not have consistently and that the victim’s studs did not have any assaulted. However, according to the victim’s statement, the above assault was committed after about two to four years from the time when the crime was committed, and there may be somewhat differences depending on the degree of memory. According to the victim’s statement, the above assault was committed after the date when the victim took place in order to move to another place. Thus, considering the fact that the victim did not have any witness (Evidence record 873 pages), U.V. and V., it cannot be viewed that credibility of the victim’s statement is not credibility solely on the grounds that the victim’s statement and defense counsel did not have any witness (Evidence record).

2. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts such as deceptive schemes against minors under the age of 13

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The Defendant was well aware of the ordinary students, but during that process, the Defendant could have taken the chest of the victim F. However, there was no intention to have the chest of the victim F. as stated in the attached Table No. 2, as shown in the attached Table No. 2.

2) At the time, students entered the name of “Absect,” as “Absect,” while engaging in acts similar to those described in Nos. 3, 15, 29, 37, 38, 41, and 43 of the annexed List of Crimes. The Defendant, while playing with the victims, has been faced with an act of breaking the resistance due to his/her fingers, and the victims have distorted it. In addition, the Defendant did not have committed any act such as those described in No. 30 of the annexed List of Crimes.

3) The Defendant committed an indecent act against L by the victim as described in the [Attachment List No. 32] of the List of Offenses No. 32, only committed an indecent act on the part of the victim L, which caused the victim L to be lusium, lusium, part of a practice game.

4) Even if the Defendant committed such an act, the intent of the Defendant to commit an indecent act against the victims is not recognized.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that there is no person to take charge of chest as shown in the attached Table No. 2 of the List of Offenses

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence mentioned above, the defendant could be found to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim F as shown in Appendix No. 2. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted. ① The victim F was unable to take part in the victim's side by investigation agency, and the defendant was in the victim's own hand, and the defendant was living in the defendant's side, and the right chest was stored. The defendant said that he was living in a gymnasium and gymnasium and gymnasium. (Evidence No. 65,66 of the evidence record) gymnasium and gymnasium gymnasium, and the defendant was expected to take part in the wall and gynasium gynasium gynasium gynasium gynasium gynasium gynasium h.

② The victim F consistently made a statement consistent with the facts constituting the crime in this part. The victim F made a specific and clear statement from the Defendant on the background and circumstances leading up to the commission of indecent act by force, the content and method of indecent act, the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the commission of the crime.

② At the time of the police investigation and prosecutorial investigation with respect to the victim F more than three times, it is difficult to find out that there was any question that the fiduciary relationship was present with the victim F at the time of the investigation, and that there was any coercive situation or response, or that there was any question inducing the victim F to answer during the statement process. As seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the victim F made a false report or statement in order to have the Defendant punished, and there is no particular reason or ground to

2) As to the assertion that the act as described in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 15, 29, 37, 38, 41, and 43 was not committed

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s indecent act against the victims by force can be acknowledged as stated in the attached Table Nos. 3, 15, 29, 37, 38, 41, and 43.

① At an investigative agency or this court, the victims made a statement that corresponds to the criminal facts of this part of this case, “When the victims were present at a certain place prior to the right box, the Defendant committed such an act, and referred to as “if the victims were present at a certain place, she would have been doing so.” Furthermore, the victims’ statements are consistent with the main part of the crime. The victims’ statements are specific enough to be possible without direct viewing or experience as to the contents of the crime, the situation before and after the crime, the conduct or speech of the Defendant committed by the victims at the time, and the appraisal that the victims suffered at the time. ② It is difficult to find out that the victims were present at the time of the police investigation and prosecutorial trust investigation into the victims, and that there was any coercive situation or defense that led the victims at the time of their statements.”

(3) As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the victims made a false report or statement in order to have the Defendant punished, and there is no particular reason or ground to suspect the Defendant.

3) As to the assertion that there is no fact that the act as described in the attached list No. 30 was committed.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim K by having the gymnasium from around 201 to around 2012 at the Ethymnasium in the attached Table 30 of the Crimes List No. 2012, after having the defendant go off from the victim K's gymnasium, and having the gymnasium from around 201 to around 2012, and gymnasium dynasium dynasium dynasium by force

① The victim K made a statement consistent with the facts constituting the crime of this part to the purport that “A defendant, while he was off his clothes from the investigative agency to this court, has committed a crime of this part.”

② H, N, and M made a statement to the effect that K had observed 4Gs at an investigative agency (Evidence Records 114 to 118, 900, 901), and Ldo K had received 4Gs (Evidence Records 270 to 272 pages).

③ It is difficult to find out that a person in trust with the victim and witness were present at the time of the investigation and that there was any question leading to any suppression situation or response during the statement process.

④ At the investigation stage, the Defendant and his defense counsel stated that the Defendant committed a crime in this part of the clothes of the Defendant at the victim K, but the victim’s statement related to the crime was not consistent, because the victim’s statement was not consistent. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel stated in the police that “4Gs off the clothes, referring to the Defendant’s act of cutting off the clothes, and the Defendant’s act of cutting off the clothes,” and “an act of cutting off the clothes in the state of being under the influence of the Defendant and the defense counsel” (Evidence No. 219-22 of the evidence record), and there was no question about how the Defendant and the defense counsel did not make a concrete statement about the degree that the victim K, who was under 12 years of age at the time, was off the clothes of the Defendant and the defense counsel, considering that the victim’s statement was consistent. In the main part, the victim’s statement in the part cannot be deemed to be credibility solely on the basis of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

4) As to the assertion that there was no fact that there was an act as described in the separate sheet No. 32

앞서 본 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 별지 범죄일람표 제32번 기재와 같이 피해자 L를 위력으로 추행한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 피고인 및 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다. ① 피해자 L는 경찰 및 검찰에서 '2011. 5.경 피해자가 "헐."이라고 하였는데 피고인이 진짜 항문을 헐게 해주겠다고 하면서 다른 선수들에게 비닐장갑을 찾으라고 하였고 피고인이 비닐장갑을 손에 끼고 오일을 발라 엉덩이 주변에 손가락을 살짝 대다 말았다. 다음으로 W가 화장실에 갔다가 숙소에 와서 "힐."이라고 했더니 이번에는 안 봐준다고 하면서 장갑을 끼고 더 세게 항문을 쑤셨다. 그 후 다른 아이들에게 냄새를 맡아 보라고 하였다. (증거기록 257쪽), '피고인이 피해자가 "헐."이라고 말했다는 이유로 애들을 시켜서 피해자를 바닥에 엎드리게 한 후 피해자의 바지를 내리고 비닐장갑을 끼고 오일을 손에 바른 후 항문에 손가락을 살짝 넣었다 뺐다. (증거기록 872쪽), '피고인 이 피해자가 "헐."이라고 말했다는 이유로 항문에 손가락을 넣었고 당시 조금 아팠다. 손가락은 1센티미터 정도 들어갔으며 항문에 그냥 쿡 찌르는 수준이었다. 당시 농구부원 전부가 보았다. (증거기록 975, 976쪽)라고 진술하였고 이 법정에서도 '2011. 5. 경피고인이 피해자의 항문에 손가락을 집어넣은 사실이 있다. 당시 피해자에게는 조금만 집어 넣었는데 W에게는 아예 집어 넣었다.'라고 진술하였다.

② The F stated that “L was “srad.” at the police, and that the Defendant kidds the sanitary wall, puts the wall, puts the wall into the port, puts the wall, and b-3 seconds up to the end of 2-3 seconds. Next, the Defendant, who was the defect “srad.”, again puts the hand in W’s port and left the smell to other children. L, directly viewed L, and W was l’s friendship I talked (36 pages,67 pages, and 67 pages).

H, after cutting off the panty and bus from the police and the prosecutor's office "L and W", the defendant laid off the panty and bus to the floor, and put the fright and the stop of inspection into L and W's resistance. He then made a statement that he was smelled by cutting off the fright and smell (Evidence Records 118 to 121, 840, 841).

④ At the police station and the prosecution, “L” was called “srad.”, and when the Defendant sniffed the words, the Defendant sniffed the fingers into the port door by cutting off the vinyl, and put the fingers into knife. After that, W was going to the toilet, W so called “srad.” After doing so, W was said to go to the toilet, and W was said to have been sniffed with W, and snife W was sniffed to other son. Since I was off at the time, I was forced to go off by force, and the Defendant was placed on the floor of L, and then the Defendant did not seem to go against it because it was equal to the Defendant (Evidence No. 17-181, No. 865). At the time of his refusal to do so.

⑤ At around 2011, K stated that the Defendant stated that “D and W were put in the door by putting L and B in his hand a vinyl in his room at the E Elementary School Sports Center (Evidence No. 227-230 pages)” (Evidence No. 227-230 pages) and that “W and L were “spl.” on the ground that the Defendant stated that “W and L were spl.”, and that he was flished in the text of W and L.

6. The victim L has consistently made statements consistent with this part of the facts constituting a crime. Also, the statements made by the victim L and the witness of the facts constituting a crime in this part are not only consistent with each other’s major parts, but also contain specific and detailed descriptions to the extent that it is not possible to directly see or experience the content of the crime, the situation before and after the crime, the actions and horses that the Defendant had committed at the time, and includes information above standardized cases.

7) The fact of damage is denied by the victim L and F, H, I, and K, who is identified as having suffered the same damage as at the time of the crime in this part. The victim L consistently states the fact of damage in W, even in a situation where the credibility of his/her statement may be doubtful.

(k) The Defendant and his defense counsel stated that when the victim L makes an initial statement at the police station, the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant had the fingers around the port, and the prosecution made a statement that the Defendant had the fingers and had contacted the victim's statements again in this court. Thus, the victim's statements on the crime are not reliable because the victim's statements are not consistent. However, in the main part, the difference in the above statements can be seen as the difference in the method of expressing the contents of the crime. The victim L was under the age of 10 and was under the age of 12 to 14 at the time of the statement at the investigative agency and this court. In full view of the fact that the victim's statements were made after the lapse of about 2 to 4 years from the time of the crime, and the victim's statements were in contact with the victim's memory, and the contents could be somewhat different depending on the limit of his memory, it is difficult to view that the credibility of the victim's statements and defense counsel asserted that there is no credibility solely on the basis of the circumstances.

9) At the time, the Defendant asserts that the victim L was able to buck down with the parts of bucks, etc. at the time. The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that the victim and witness could be mistaken (Evidence No. 957 pages), and that it was difficult to accept that there was a buckbucks between the victim and witness in the process of mashing (Evidence No. 957 pages), and that there was a bucks between the bucks.

(10) As seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the victims made a false report and statement in order to have the Defendant punished, and there is no particular reason or ground for the victims to mislead the Defendant.

5) As to the assertion that an indecent act was not committed

The crime of indecent act by force against a person under 13 years of age under Article 7 (5) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is the benefit and protection of the right to protect the sexual identity and values of a child under 13 years of age without any improper sexual stimulation or physical handicap from outside. The term " indecent act" means not only a subjective motive or purpose to stimulate sexual humiliation as a subjective element, but also an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to a general average person in the same place as the victim objectively causes sexual moral sense and infringes on the victim's sexual freedom against a specific sexual moral sense. Determination of whether it constitutes such act ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the victim's intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to such act, specific behavior attitude committed against the victim, objective situation, and sexual morality at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1631, Jul. 16, 2016; 200Do1601, Jul. 16, 2016, 2016).

According to the evidence mentioned above, the above acts were rejected, such as the act of taking the victim's chest in person, the victim's age and relationship with the defendant, the act of putting the victim's clothes into a bridge and breaking the victim's fingers, the act of gathering the victim's fingers in the victim's resistance, the act of directly contact with the victim's body, and the act of putting the victim's fingers into the victim's fingers, and the victim's body part was sexually sensitive, and the victim's refusal to do so, and the victim's refusal to do so was called "brus and frights............" In light of the victim's age and relation with the defendant, the circumstances leading to such acts, and today's sexual moral sense, each of the above acts constituted an act that objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the victims and infringes sexual morality, and constitutes an indecent act against the victim's sexual moral norms.

Even if each act of the defendant was derived from the purpose of pro-friendly expression or decoration, each act cannot be deemed as having satisfied the adequacy as a means of pro-friendly expression or decoration, and thereby adversely affected the psychological growth and formation of sexual identity of the victims who have been mentally and physically familiar, and it constitutes an indecent act as it does not conform to the current social environment and the concept of sexual value standards, and it also constitutes an indecent act, and it can be recognized that the defendant had failed to perform the indecent act.

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

3. As to the crime of coercion

A. Summary of the assertion

1) When the victims do not have the defendant, they are aware that they were off the clothes with the inner body while carrying out the self-practice game, and that the defendant did not force the victims to be off the clothes after the practice game or training as stated in the attached list Nos. 4, 5, 23, 34, and 40.

2) The victims are aware of the fact that they exceeded clothes in penal provisions when they move to a vehicle, and that they forced the Defendant to do so as stated in [Attachment] Nos. 14 and 17.

B. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the foregoing evidence, the fact that the Defendant forced the victims to perform a non-obligatory act as described in the attached Table Nos. 4, 5, 14, 17, 23, 34, and 40 of the List of Crimes can be acknowledged. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

① The victims are making statements in compliance with the facts constituting an offense in this part at an investigative agency or in this court. Moreover, it is specific to the extent that the victims’ statements are consistent with each other in major parts, and that it is not possible to directly see or experience the content of a crime, the situation before and after a crime, the conduct or speech by the Defendant at the time of the crime, the emotional distress at the time of the occurrence of the victims. It is difficult to find out that there was any question about the victims who were in trust relationship at the time of the police investigation and prosecutorial investigation, and that there was any coercive situation or inquiry leading

(3) As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the victims made a false report and statement in order to have the Defendant subject to criminal punishment, and the victims cannot find any particular reason or ground for believing the Defendant.

4) 피고인 및 변호인은 피해자들이 옷을 벗은 정도에 관하여 피해자들 또는 목격한 학생들의 진술이 일관되지 않아 그 신빙성을 인정하기 어렵다는 취지로 주장하나, '피고인이 피해자들이 연습훈련에서 지거나 슛을 잘 못할 경우 옷을 벗게 하였고 차량을 타고 이동하는 과정에서 끝말잇기 게임을 하면서 맞추지 못하면 옷을 벗게 하였다'는 취지의 주요 진술은 일관성이 있고 서로 진술이 일치하는 점, 위 범죄일시로부터 상당기간이 경과한 후에 피해자들의 진술이 이루어져 기억력의 한계에 따라 사소한 사항에 있어서 다소 차이가 있을 수 있는 점 등을 고려하면 피고인 및 변호인이 주장하는 사정만으로 그 진술의 신빙성을 부정할 수는 없다.

⑤ The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of coercion is not specified in the crime of coercion, since the Defendant exceeded clothes to the extent that the victims would not feel a sense of shame, not to allow the victims to be in full of clothes, but to the extent that they would not feel a sense of shame, the crime of coercion is not established, and thus, the crime of coercion is not established. However, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted, since the crime of coercion means that the Defendant interferes with the exercise of rights by a person through assault or intimidation, or allow them to perform non-performance of duties. The term “non-performance of duties” refers only to non-performance of legal obligations arising out of Acts and subordinate statutes, contracts, etc., and thus, the crime of coercion is established by forcing the victims to go off clothes without a legal obligation. The issue of whether the victims had a sense of shamed and that the victims suffered a sense of shame does not affect the

4. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (ameras, etc.) and the crime of intimidation on July 26, 201

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant heard that some victims were able to shot off their clothes, imprint their pictures, spread them, etc., and tried to admonish them. However, on July 26, 201, the Defendant took photographs of the victims’ body pictures to the effect that “I would be able to capture the pictures if I were not able to take the satisfe in a mobile phone after having taken the satch of the victims who were satching with the satching on a mobile phone on or around July 26, 201, and then having taken a photograph of the victims’ body pictures to capture them.”

(b) judgment;

1) As to the assertion that no photographs were taken

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence, the fact that the Defendant taken the body of the victim H, I, K, and L against his/her will can be recognized as having been recorded as stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment.

① At the time of this part of the crime in investigation agency and this court, the victim L showed 12 photographs to each of them, and in the case of X, which was the second grade students of elementary school, separately marked that the Defendant’s pictures were affixed to the Defendant’s relative, and the Defendant’s pictures were also displayed to the Defendant’s relative on the following day (Evidence No. 264-265 of the evidence record). In addition, the victim K also stated that the Defendant’s pictures were displayed before this court. The victim I stated that the Defendant was exposed to the victim’s pictures after the Defendant taken the victim’s pictures at investigation agency (Evidence No. 172-173 of the evidence record). ② At the time of the police investigation, S, who is the second grade of the Defendant, stated that he exceeded the X’s pictures stored in his cell phone at the time of the police investigation, he was out of the status of 53 (Evidence No. 533 of the evidence).

③ The victim L and K’s statement that the victim’s statement about the situation at the time is consistent and consistent with each other, and thus, the victim’s statement shows the victim’s photograph. Moreover, even according to the Defendant’s statement on the back-to-date statement, X appears to have been actually taken, and X’s photograph appears to have been taken. The Defendant’s assertion that X’s photograph was taken while it was actually taken, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s photograph was taken.

2) As to the assertion that there was no threat to victims

In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence mentioned above, namely, the victims have consistently made statements that correspond to the facts charged in this part at an investigation agency or in this court, and the statements between the victims coincide with each other, and even if the victims' assertion was made, it would be possible to make the victims feel that if they are not present at a Y, I, K, and L's body, as in paragraph (4) of the decision of the defendant, it shall be taken and sent to the Internet site or to another person, and it can be recognized that there was an intentional intent to make such statements to the defendant.

1. The grounds for sentencing;

(a) Basic crime: A crime committed against the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes listed in attached Table 32 (Indecent Acts, such as deceptive schemes against minors under the age of 13);

[Scope of Recommendation Form] Special criteria for sex crimes subject to the age of 13 years

Aggravation (6 years to 13 years)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Crimes of continuous and repeated crimes against multiple victims, crimes at special protection places, crimes of persons obligated to report, or persons engaged in protective facilities, etc.

(b) Second crime: An indecent act committed against the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes listed in attached Table 30 (a minor's deceptive scheme, etc. under the age of 13);

[Scope of Recommendation Form] Special criteria for sex crimes subject to the age of 13 years

Aggravation (6 years to 13 years)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Offenses of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes listed in Attached Table 2 (Indecent Acts, such as Fraudulent Means, etc. by Minors under 13 years of age).

[Scope of Recommendation Form] Special criteria for sex crimes subject to the age of 13 years

Aggravation (6 years to 13 years)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Crimes of continuous and repeated crimes against multiple victims, crimes at special protection places, crimes of persons obligated to report, or persons engaged in protective facilities, etc.

(d) Application of the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for six years to twenty-four years (the standards for handling multiple crimes shall be separately applied even in cases where the crime of multiple victims is reflected as a person who is specially under special interest.

The scope of sentence for basic crimes shall be determined by adding up 1/2 of the upper limit of the scope of sentence for secondary crimes and 1/3 of the upper limit of the scope of sentence for third crimes)

2. Determination of sentence: In the case of three years of imprisonment with prison labor, the case is that the defendant, who was an elementary school deaf ccocoin, was aware of the main part of the case that the defendant should protect and guide students and took advantage of personal trust relationship between 10 years of age and 12 years of age at the time, thereby committing indecent acts against the victims, putting the victims into the port of the young victims who were merely 10 years of age and 12 years of age, putting them in a bridge, putting them in a bridge, putting them in a bridge, or putting them in a bridge, and took the photographs of the victims who were off of clothes. In light of the background, method, and degree of damage, etc. of each indecent act of this case, it seems difficult for the victims and their guardians to easily recover the sexual humiliation and suffering of the victims who were under his age at the time, and the Defendant was punished corresponding to their liability for the crime.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant had the attitude of recognizing the Defendant’s act of assault and misunderstanding, and deposited KRW 23 million in the victims; and (b) in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victims, the background of the indecent act, the statement of the victims, etc., each indecent act in the instant case was not committed in the motive to meet the Defendant’s sexual desire; and (c) some of the indecent act in the instant case is not relatively more severe. Moreover, the Defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment. Such circumstance is considered as favorable to the Defendant.

Other circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, the motive, circumstances, contents, and circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as the order.

Where a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive with respect to the crimes listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 29, 30, 32, 37, and 38 among the crimes stated in the judgment on the registration of personal information, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the former Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201); Article 33(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201); and Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Personal Information on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 2011); and Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11047, Dec. 15, 2012). 2013).

Disclosure of Registered Information and Exemption from Notice

In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation, background and result of the instant crime, the sex crime prevention effect expected after the disclosure and notification of personal information, the result of comparison and balancing between the Defendant’s disadvantage and anticipated side effects, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s personal information has a risk of recidivism due to the absence of the record of punishment for a sex offense. In this case, the Defendant’s personal information may expect the effect of preventing recidivism even through the registration of personal information and the completion of a sexual assault treatment program, etc. In addition, there are special circumstances where disclosure and notification of Defendant’s personal information may not be made. Accordingly, the Defendant’s personal information shall not be disclosed or notified pursuant to the proviso to Article 38(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); the proviso to Article 38-2(1) of the former Act; the proviso to Article 1 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Amended by Act No. 15, Apr. 15, 2015).

Parts of innocence

1. The point of coercion of entry No. 21 of the annexed List of Crimes;

A. Summary of the facts charged

From May 27, 2011 to May 31, 2011, the Defendant forced the victimJ to drink alcohol at a meeting place.

(b) judgment;

1) The term “incrimination” means that a person interferes with the exercise of a person’s right by assault or threat or force him to perform an act without any obligation. Here, intimidation refers to the objectively restricting the freedom of decision-making or notifying harm and injury likely to be drinking to the extent that it interferes with the freedom of decision-making (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do763 Decided September 26, 2003).

2) The record reveals the following facts.

① At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the victim J stated that, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant she dices the beer of the juvenile body, she booms the beer of the beer, and the Defendant dices the alcohol by drinking in a commemoration of the beer, and she dices the breath, and she was a parent at the time she had her parents (Evidence Record 985, 986 pages).

② With the exception of the victim J, the victim H, I, L, etc. stated to the effect that they were or were not the victims who stated the above facts charged and that they would be aware of the facts of other damage inflicted by the victim J (Evidence No. 842, 858, and 876). However, in light of the above facts acknowledged, it is difficult to understand in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant forced the victims who were elementary school students with parents to drink alcohol. According to the victim J’s statement, considering the fact that the Defendant forced other players to drink alcohol at the time, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

2. The point of coercion of entry No. 31 of the annexed List of Crimes;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On May 201, the Defendant was in the game in the course of self-practice training at E elementary school gymnasiums and forced the victim L to be off clothes by force and running a gymnasium on the ground that the Defendant was in the game during self-training training.

B. Determination

The record reveals the following facts.

① The victim L was in the police station, and the team that she was off or off the sports center, stated that it was extremely old. However, since it was the opposite side, the victim’s she was off his/her own string and running off his/her string (Evidence No. 275 pages).

② The victim L, as stated in the police, stated that the team, which was engaged in self-practice as stated in the police, was off all clothes and was 5 wheelsed by the sports center (Evidence 872 pages).

③ At around May 201, the victim L stated in this court that the Defendant exceeded his clothes and running a gymnasium on the ground that the Defendant was in game during self-training training in a gymnasium.

The following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts of recognition, i.e., the victim L, when the investigation agency first made a statement at the time when the defendant made a statement to the effect that he was found to have opened the clothes of the team in the practice game and that he was directly damaged by him, but it is unclear whether the defendant forced the victim L to do so even if he made a statement in this court because he was the victim's statement, it is unclear whether he was forced the victim to do so. The victim's memory at the time when the victim's statement was made at an investigation agency near the day of the above facts charged is more accurate than the day when the victim's statement was made at the court, and there is a possibility that the victim's memory was confused or distorted with the contents of his witness at the time when he made a statement at the time when three years have passed from the day of the above facts charged. In full view of the above facts charged by the prosecutor alone, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is reasonable

The conclusion is that there is no evidence to prove that there is no room.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

3. Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes listed in Attached Table No. 39 of the List of Offenses (Use and photographing of Cameras, etc.) and intimidation;

A. Summary of the facts charged

In 2012, the Defendant: (a) taken shower in the shower room of the E Elementary School E Elementary School Sports Center; (b) taken the victim M from his body's cell phone against the victim's will using his mobile phone; and (c) took the victim's body against the victim's will, in the future, by using the Internet site or the machinery devices equipped with similar functions as a camera by threatening the victim's M that he would transmit or spread to others; and (d) by threatening the victim's body, the victim's body may cause sexual humiliation or humiliation against the victim's will.

B. Determination

1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by an indecent act victim by evidence at the prosecution, considering the fact that a child’s sexual harassment victim’s statement is strong amciacy by the questioner, and that there is a possibility that confusion about the situation and reality of the child or the source of memory may not be properly perceived, the child’s age should be examined, how much the child’s statement was made after the lapse of the time of the occurrence of the case, how much the guardian or investigator who heard the first child’s damage in the process of the occurrence of the case until the statement was made after the occurrence of the case, and whether there was any possibility that the child’s sexual harassment victim’s sexual harassment victim would be modified to his memory by providing information that is not a fact-finding or inducing a specific answer through repeated newspapers, etc., whether the child’s statement made by the questioner at the time of the statement was repeated; whether the child’s statement was affected by the interviewer; whether the child’s statement was made in court, what is the content of the case’s statements should also be examined in a comprehensive manner.

2) The record reveals the following facts.

① In the process of the police investigation, the victim M was found to have a photograph when he was 'WKL game', and the Defendant marked his photograph. The victim M was exempted from clothes, booms, and pent and booms with his clothes, and was working again before the species-based game (Evidence Records 332~ 334). The game type is now in 7 months (2013). The game type was now in 2012. At that time, the Defendant was unaware of several months (2012), and was at the time in B or B. The victim stated that the Defendant was off (34, 335 pages of the evidence record). The victim was off from the prosecutor’s body to 8 years, and was off from the body of the Defendant at the time of 2012. The victim was off from the body of the Defendant, and was off from the body of the Defendant at that time of 2012.

③ Since August 27, 2012, WKL games were held from August 27, 2012 to September 2, 2012, and there was no evidence as to the date on which the KWL games were held, but it was held from July 26, 201 to July 31, 201.

④ The police did not make a statement about the above facts charged at the time of the investigation conducted by the prosecution together with M, and stated that H, K, and L was also conducted at the time of the investigation (Evidence Records 896, 897 pages).

⑤ On July 26, 2011, L made a statement that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s body and took photographs only once, and that M was unaware of the victim’s body at the time of the crime (L had taken photographs at the prosecutor’s office at the time of May 6, 201, but the same time was reversed in this court). The following circumstances revealed by the above fact-finding, namely, ① the victim’s son was aware of the victim’s body before the Defendant’s 6th examination of the victim’s body and the Defendant’s 6th examination of the victim’s body, and there was no possibility of confusion between the victim’s body and the prosecutor’s office’s testimony at the time of this case’s examination of the victim’s body and the Defendant’s 6th examination of the victim’s body. In particular, L did not appear to have any effect on the victim’s oral testimony at the time of the investigation into the victim’s age of 1, 2011.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

The presiding judge, judge and assistant superintendent;

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges Kim Jae-hwan

1) The indictment contains the date and time of the crime as stated in the attached Table No. 10 of the crime committed on November 201, 201. However, the victim G is unable to be damaged by the Defendant who was the deaf ccoin of an elementary school since he was the first year of March 1, 2011 due to his birth in March 1, 201. G also states that he was subject to violence from the Defendant in 2010, when he was the sixth year of elementary school. In light of the fact that the prosecutor shows to G at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, the crime list, which was confirmed by the prosecutor, is written as "the first policeman of November 201, 201" as "the first policeman of November 1, 201," and the defendant appears to be the first policeman of November 1, 201, and it does not dispute this part, and therefore, it does not interfere with the Defendant's exercise of his right to defense."

2) In the indictment, the facts constituting the crime stated in the attached list 30 is stated as follows: "The defendant was exempted from all the victim's clothes; the 30th of the victim's clothes was laid off; the victim's legs was laid down; and the victim's 4G scam was scambling with the victim's legs." However, the victim K made a statement that "the defendant was exempted from the defendant's scam in this court." The victim K did not interfere with the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense. Thus, without the revision of the indictment, the victim's clothes are recognized as "I am off from all the victim's clothes" and "I am off the victim's scam."

3) Article 3(1) of the former Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sept. 15, 201); Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201); Article 3(1) of the former Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201); Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 33(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Sep. 15, 201); however, the Defendant is obligated to submit personal information to a person subject to registration under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

4) In the facts charged, it is stipulated that the ‘Wo-gu Women's Republic of Korea's Republic of Korea is the only name according to the evidence.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.