beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the statements shown in the facts charged by the victim and G as to the facts charged by the victim, and the statement by H as to the circumstances of the crime, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the victim’s chest and her her her son, as described in the facts charged, was committed, and that the Defendant committed an indecent act.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected
B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On April 23, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant, at around 02:25 on April 23, 2015, committed an indecent act by force against the victim, by leaving the victim’s chest in front of the Kabter only once the Kabter was her hand, with both her fingers.
2) The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., (ii) the testimony of G investigative agencies and witnesses in relation to the parts and methods of the conduct, (iii) not only are consistent, but also are inconsistent with the contents of the statement between E and G; (iv) in relation to the circumstances in which the Defendant committed an indecent act against E (tel, telephone call, prosecution, order of assault); and (iv) H was out of the room the sound, namely, “hheat” and the sound, while drinking in the inside room of the drinking house.
Although there was no direct witness to commit the indecent act by the defendant, as seen earlier, E and G are not consistent with the statements made in the investigation agency and the court, but when they are investigated by the investigation agency on the day of the instant case, they agree with each other and "the defendant gets sound after the completion of telephone conversations, is broken off."