logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.29 2016노300
강제추행등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, around April 3, 2015, 22:20 on April 3, 2015, fighting between the Defendant and F in the front street of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

The Matrimonial relationship, F, the chest of the victim G, committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim.

B. The lower court’s finding of a criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge’s conviction to such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree that such conviction would lead to such conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the Defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the

On the other hand, the term “act of indecent act” as referred to in the crime of coercion is objectively an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, the surrounding objective situation, and the sexual moral sense of that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). Specifically, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below are comprehensively taken into account.

arrow