logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.15 2018노899
강제추행등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is not guilty of committing an indecent act or assault against the victim.

B. The sentence of the court below against the illegal defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. On June 3, 2017, at around 06:00, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim by: (a) reporting that he/she drinks with the victim D(M, 19 years of age) her natives as “C” located on the 1st underground floor in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and making the victim sits on the right side of his/her face, making the victim sits on the face of his/her left hand, and 4-5 hacks his/her shoulder and hys on his/her left hand, thereby committing an indecent act by force.

B. The Defendant transferred the victim’s left side at the same time and place as the preceding brine prior to the assault, carried the shampoo and shamper, which was placed by the female, and shampoo and shamper who was placed in the victim’s face, and assaulted the victim by shampoo and shamper’s body in his hand.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. (1) The judgment of the court of this case is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to lead the judge to feel true that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is any doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). The defendant consistently denies the whole facts charged in this case from the police, and the defendant has consistently denied the whole facts charged in this case, there is a statement prepared by the victim, G, F, E, the police statement prepared by the victim, the police statement prepared by the victim, G, F, E, and E, each of the court below's decisions.

However, the foregoing.

arrow