logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.25 2016노53
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강제추행)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant 1 did not have a criminal intent to commit an indecent act against the Defendant by mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (one year of a suspended sentence of three years, etc.) that declared unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s argument that the sentencing is unfair is too uneasible and unfair.

2) There are special circumstances in which disclosure of personal information against the Defendant is not subject to unfair grounds for exemption from disclosure disclosure disclosure order.

Although the court below did not see it, it is unreasonable to exempt the disclosure notification order.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court denied the fact that the Defendant was in charge of smelling and smelling on the part of the victimized person, and denied the intent to commit an indecent act. However, the lower court acknowledged the objective facts of the facts charged in the instant case, but still did not have the intent to commit an indecent act.

argument is asserted.

The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) the victim was a female child or juvenile who was older than 6 years old at the time of committing the crime; (ii) the Defendant was not the victim’s friendship with his/her mother-child living together; and (iii) the Defendant was in charge of panty panty by her female panty; and (iv) the victim was not present at the time when her act was committed.

In full view of the statements, there was no subjective motive or objective to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy the Defendant’s sexual desire.

Even if the defendant's above act causes a general and average person to feel sexual humiliation or aversion and goes against good sexual morality, it constitutes an indecent act that infringes on the victim's sexual freedom.

arrow