(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.10.31 2014고단1984

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.10.31 2014고단1984

성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적공공장소침입)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 25, 2014, at around 23:15, the Defendant intruded into the public toilets 'D' house in Namyang-si with a view to meeting his own sexual desire, and changed the urine of E, a woman in side partitions.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement in part of the defendant's legal statement (a statement to the effect that the face is written in front of the floor and side partitions from the toilet);

1. Legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. The police statement of E and F;

1. On-site photographs (the toilets of D drinking houses (hereinafter referred to as “the toilet of this case”) at the place of criminal conduct;

Although the entrance is in common use of both men and women, there are 4 partitionss for women in each toilet, there are two separates in English, so as to distinguish whether they are male or female, and whether they are female, and the defendant was stated at the time of investigation into the prosecution that he was fluent of the defendant's educational background, but the above statement by the defendant that he was gathering ONY LADD, stroke of the defendant's educational background, cannot be trusted;

Although the defendant immediately left side partitions, he went to a female toilet, and there is no urgent situation for the defendant to go to without distinguishing it.

Although the Defendant alleged that a witness who had been at the present site was in a toilet for the purpose of drinking alcohol with excessive relation, the Defendant testified that he was unable to hear the voice of the Defendant, and the Defendant was guilty of the facts constituting the crime of this case as follows: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to believe that the witness was in a toilet for the purpose of drinking alcohol; (b) in addition to the circumstances that the witness went to the female toilet of the “H” commercial building, which is another building, prior to the instant toilet, but went to the instant toilet, and that he was immediately absent from the toilet due to the time when he went to go through, or going to close, the commercial building at that time without going to go through, or attempt to go to go,; and (c) it is consistent with the facts charged.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.05.22 2013고단1737

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.24 2014고단3896

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.21 2016노1913

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2017고단473

-대구지방법원 2014.01.07 2013고단4981