logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.28 2017노1204
강제추행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 20, 2016, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim on January 20, 2016.

B. As to the infringement of residence (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles), the Defendant’s entry into the victim’s residence was conducted to check the fire reduction engine as an officetel manager, and the victim’s right to visit the residence after checking whether the victimized person was in the residence, opened a door to the victim and opened the door. Thus, the Defendant cannot be acknowledged as having intentionally invaded upon residence, or the Defendant’s entry into the victim’s residence constitutes a justifiable act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the witness D’s statement on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s forced indecent act, etc., the Defendant, around January 20, 2016, concluded that around 15:00 on January 20, 2016, the Defendant was able to see the victim’s losses from the victim’s house to her hand, and that “I would like to boom boom with the victim’s hand,” and that she was forced to commit an indecent act by force, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the charge of intrusion on residence 1) The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, namely, where the Defendant enters an officetel in which a resident in need of inspection of the fire reduction devices ordinarily resides.

arrow