logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.10.25 2018고단1380
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was the victim C(39 years of age, women) relationship.

1. On August 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the victim’s house located in the Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu; (b) the victim later.

Although the intention of refusal was expressed, the body of the victim who sexual intercourses with the defendant was taken by using the cell phone camera function of the defendant in a dynamic state.

2. The Defendant: (a) at the same place as before and after December 2017, the victim “at least” is stamped.

Although the intention of refusal was expressed, the body of the victim who escaped from Hashed by using the mobile phone camera functions of the defendant and sexual intercourse with the defendant was taken a video recording.

3. On January 1, 2018, at the same place as paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant taken a video recording of the part of the victim’s sexual organ by using the cell phone camera of the Defendant without the consent of the victim, who was under the influence of alcohol, and without the consent of the victim.

As a result, the defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a camera or other similar mechanism, against his will.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Data restored from a mobile phone of the person against whom such data or video extraction CDs;

1. Seizure records;

1. The list of seizure [the defendant and defense counsel in relation to the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment] denies the crime with the victim's implied consent, but the evidence of the judgment denies the crime, the victim consistently states that there is no consent to the photographing of sexually related video, and the victim has only affixed the video taken twice above.

The victim's words are clearly expressed in the last place, and it is reasonable to regard the victim's words as the victim's explicit refusal intention in itself, and the image does not reveal the defendant's face, but it is the victim's face.

arrow