beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
At around 13:35 on July 8, 2015, the Defendant purchased a beer and 1 disease at D convenience stores located in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on the ground that the victim E (n, 20 years of age) who is a part-time student (n, 20 years of age) took less than the beer money due to an error in calculation, and the Defendant ordered the F to cancel the transaction and the victim took an oral disease from the above F to put the foregoing disease into the display stand, and the Defendant Dad on the side of the victim to get deducted from the victim of the foregoing disease from the display stand. The Defendant carried out a door by having the victim's left part part of the victim's left part part of the bar as a part of the Defendant's right trade.
Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. In the investigation report (CCTV reproduction), the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention of indecent act by indecent act in the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act only because it was a secret contact with the wind that the body cannot be properly accumulated during the period of his/her illness. In the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act, the term “indecent act” as referred to in the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act is sufficient if the victim’s sexual freedom is infringed. The subjective constituent elements of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by intentional act are sufficient, and there is no subjective motive or purpose to stimulate the perpetrator’s sexual desire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). In particular, each of the evidence mentioned earlier, including the result of CCTV video reproduction by this court, following the victim’s loss to the port of the victim’s.