logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.20 2017고단8180
강제추행
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 3, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and found the Victim F (L, 22 years of age) who was under the influence of alcohol while driving a DNA car in the state of drinking around 01:30 on July 3, 2017 and driving it on a road near Gangnam-gu Seoul E Station, and was under the influence of alcohol.

At the time of proposal, the victim was allowed to board the above car, and the victim was asked to request the victim to "at least once" through several times, and stopped to the H Han-won parking lot located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the place where the victim's house is located, Gangnam-gu.

피고인은 2017. 7. 3. 01:40 경 위 주차장에 정차된 위 승용차 안에서 피해자에게 다시금 “ 술 한 잔 더하자” 고 요구하다가 거절당하자, 피해자를 강제 추행하기로 마음먹고 양팔로 피해자를 껴안은 후, 피해자가 거부함에도 강제로 입을 맞추고 피해자의 목과 어깨를 핥은 다음 손으로 피해자의 가슴을 만지고 입으로 피해자의 가슴을 빨았다.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. F’s statement protocol against each police officer’s statement (this case’s charge is denied, so the victim’s statement is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any other reliable data that can reasonably be objectively viewed as having no credibility. In the major part of the statement, the credibility of the statement is not readily denied solely on the ground that the witness’s statement is inconsistent with the witness’s statement, and it is somewhat inconsistent with the witness’s statement on other minor matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). However, according to each of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the victim is consistent and specifically consistent with the instant crime in investigative agency and this court as well as with the present situation before and after it.

arrow