logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.12 2015고합37
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The defendant's disclosure of information about the defendant is made through an information and communications network for five years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the owner of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E and Adong 701, had the victim F (the 23 years of age), living in this area, put the victim F (the 23 years of age) into an impossible state for drinking water and attempted to force indecent acts by force.

1. The Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, etc.

No person, other than a person handling narcotics, shall use a psychotropic drug strokem.

At around 22:30 on June 16, 2014, the Defendant suggested that the victim beer and beerer, and the victim was exempted from the “sethyl melting” in the stroke method, which was held by the victim, using the stroke in which the stroke was locked, and caused the victim to dilution it with the victim, by inserting it into the beer neck of the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant used the psychotropic drug stroke method.

2. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by compulsion by force) committed an indecent act by force against the victim, in a place like the preceding paragraph, at around 00:45 on June 17, 2014, when the beer victim, who is mixed with water exemption, enters one’s own room and has been divingd, after opening a visit by the victim not corrected and intrusion into the house, and then committing an indecent act by force against the victim, who was unable to resist due to the above water immunity.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant in the witness F's legal statement and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's testimony of the witness F is not admissible or credibility, on the ground that it was merely a mere skidy false statement to the witness, and that the witness's testimony containing the above defendant's statement is not admissible or credibility.

However, this Court.

arrow