(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23. 선고 2018고합668 판결

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years and six months, and imprisonment for up to one year and six months.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. The completion of the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours to Defendant A, and the taking of the sexual assault treatment course for 40 hours to Defendant B, respectively.

Defendants shall be ordered to place an employment restriction on children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for three years.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

Defendants are the chiefs of "D points in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and victims E (n, 28 years of age) are employees working from December 8, 2017 at the above businesses.

From 03:00 on December 17, 2017 to 03:0 on December 17, 2017, the Defendants met the victim's body at the "G store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, with the victim, to the extent that the victim was unable to properly hold the body, and left the victim on the floor, and left the victim at around 06:50 on the same day.

1. Defendant B

On December 17, 2017, from around 07:00 to 07:40 on the same day, the Defendant, while drinking in the above accommodation, exceeded the victim’s lower panty and panty in the state of failing to resist, and had sexual intercourse once with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim's failure to resist.

2. Defendant A

On December 17, 2017, from around 07:40 to 12:00 on the same day, the Defendant drunkd in the same place as in the preceding paragraph, and exceeded the victim’s lower panty and panty in the state of failing to resist, and had sexual intercourse once with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim's failure to resist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement by the police against E (Attachment of J details);

1. Application of the written consent of victims of sexual assault and medical records, the details of the conversation between victims and A, the report of internal investigation (in-house CCTV investigation) and the Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation (on-site CCTV investigation);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Code

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is made for the reason of sentencing)

1. Order to attend courses and order to complete programs;

The main sentence of Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. Exemption from an order for disclosure or notification;

In full view of Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., that there is no previous conviction in the same kind of sexual assault, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants are in danger of recidivism or recidivism; (ii) the registration and completion of personal information against the Defendants, and the attendance order alone appears to have a certain degree of effect to prevent recidivism; and (iii) other circumstances, such as the disclosure and notification order, such as the disadvantages and anticipated side effects that the Defendants may suffer due to the disclosure and notification order, and the age, occupation, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, there

1. An employment restriction order;

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018); Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Jan. 16, 2018)

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Judgment on the unspecified assertion of facts charged

A. Summary of the assertion

The written facts in the facts charged alone cannot be said to have been specified in the facts charged by clarifying whether the victim was at the time of the sexual intercourse, which was after December 11, 2017, as alleged by Defendant A, had been in the state of failing to resist, or whether there was a sex relationship different from the sexual relationship alleged by Defendant A, or not.

B. Determination

1) The facts charged must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the element of a crime are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts by integrating these elements. Even if the date, time, place, etc. of a crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed to have not been specified (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do48, Jun. 22, 2006).

2) The facts charged of this case specify the time for Defendant A’s quasi-rape crime from around 07:40 to around 12:00 on December 17, 2017. However, due to the nature of the crime of quasi-rape, it is difficult to have any direct evidence other than the victim’s statement, and the victim made a statement that he was unable to know the fact that he was quasi-rape by drinking. Therefore, it seems difficult to specify whether the victim had sexual intercourse with Defendant A accurately. Furthermore, the issue of this case is from around 07:40 on December 17, 2017 to 12:00 on December 17, 2017. As such, the facts charged alone are sufficiently specified to the extent that the victim was able to appropriately exercise his right to defense. Accordingly, this part of the allegation is not accepted.

2. Determination on the assertion that sexual intercourse was made under the agreement with the victim

A. Summary of the assertion

On December 17, 2017, Defendant A and the victim had sexual intercourse under the agreement at 11:00 a.m. on December 17, 2017. At the time, the victim had not been able to resist with the mind.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the court and examined, the degree and condition of the victim’s drinking, the credibility of the victim’s statement, and the following circumstances, Defendant A may sufficiently be recognized as having sexual intercourse with the victim who had been unable to resist due to drinking by around 07:40 on December 17, 2017 to 12:00. This part of the assertion is rejected.

1) On December 17, 2017, the day of the instant case, the victim was in a state of no consciousness by drinking up to 07: 07:30 on December 17, 2017, and it appears that the victim still was unable to recover consciousness even at the time of sexual intercourse with the Defendant A, which had been around 3 to 4 hours. In other words, according to photographs by cutting off CCTV around a main store and a lodging house on December 17, 2017, the victim was used on the floor, which was the place where the Defendants and the alcohol were drinking. At around 06:30-6:45 on December 17, 2017, the victim was able to take care of the victim, who was not able to be aware of, and was 1 to 7:0 on the day of the instant case, the victim did not have been able to take care of the victim. The victim was 1 to 7:0 on the day he was able to have been aware of his sexual intercourse with the Defendant B, and 27: 1.

2) 피해자는 수사기관에서 이 법정에 이르기까지 '당시 술에 만취하였기 때문에 피고인 A와 성관계를 한 사실을 전혀 알지 못했고, 이에 관하여 아무런 기억이 없다. 2017. 12. 17. 12시경에 정신을 차리고 침대에서 자고 있던 피고인 A를 깨워 집으로 갔다. 집에 가서 잠을 자고 일어난 후에 소변을 보다가 음부에 통증을 느껴 성폭행 사실을 인지하였다. 그 후 바로 피고인 A에게 전화를 걸어 성관계가 있었는지 추궁하였 다.'라는 취지로 진술하였다. 이러한 피해자의 진술은 주요 부분이 대체로 일관되어 있고, 구체적이고 직접 경험하지 않고서는 진술할 수 없는 내용이 포함되어 있으며 합리적이지 않거나 경험칙에 반한다고 볼 만한 내용이 없어 신빙성이 높다. 또한 피고인 A와 피해자는 1에서 알게 된 실장과 종업원 관계로 두 사람이 이 사건 이전에 주고받은 J 대화 내용에 의하면 평소 사이가 나빴던 것으로 보이지 않으며 이 사건 당일에도 회식을 하면서 함께 술을 마셨다. 이를 고려하면 피해자가 허위 진술로 피고인 A를 무고하였다고 보기 어렵고, 피해자에게 무고할 동기가 있다고 인정할 자료를 찾아 볼 수도 없다. 피해자는 처음 성관계 사실을 알게 된 직후에는 피고인 A에게 '잘못을 인정하고 사과하고 보상금을 달라'라고 한 사실은 있지만 그 후 30분 만에 곧바로 피고인 A를 경찰에 신고하였고, 그 후에는 다시 피고인 A에게 합의금 등을 요구한 사실이 없다. 피해자는 이 법정에서 당시 보상금은 약값이나 정신적 피해 보상 명목으로 30~50만 원 정도로 생각하였다고 진술하였는데, 피해자가 특별히 금전적 이득을 얻기 위해 허위로 진술한 것으로 보기도 어렵다.

3) Defendant A’s assertion disputing the credibility of the victim’s statement that meets the facts charged cannot be accepted. Defendant A made a statement at an investigative agency that “the time when the victim first perceived quasi-rape was aware of the injury and the time when the victim became aware of the injury,” and at this court, Defendant A made a statement that the victim became aware of the sexual assault at the Seoul East East Sea Center, and the Seoul East East Sea Center made a statement that he was aware of the sexual assault at that time, and that the statement that he returned to that time was not consistent. However, the victim’s statement is inconsistent with this court from o’clock to o’clock in that the victim’s statement was aware of the sexual assault after she went back to o’clock, and that the victim was aware of the sexual assault at that time, and that it was not clear that the victim was aware of whether the victim was quasi-rape or not, depending on the fact that the victim was aware of whether the victim was a sexual intercourse and that the victim was aware of the victim’s sexual intercourse on that day, the victim’s statement is not clear from this day.

이어 피고인 A는 피해자가 경찰에서 '증인의 음부, 질 내부 부위에서 정액반응이 음성으로 판정되었는데 어떻게 생각하느냐'라는 질문에 대해 '샤워를 할 때 음부를 씻어내는 버릇이 있어서 씻겨졌을 것이다.'라고 대답하였는데, 서울 동부 해바라기 센터에서 작성한 문항지에는 '질세척 또는 뒷물을 하였다'는 질문에 '아니오'라고 하였으므로 피해자 진술에 일관성이 없다고 주장한다. 그러나 피해자가 서울 동부 해바라기 센터에서 작성한 문항지에 따르면, 피해자는 '질세척 또는 뒷물을 하였다'는 질문에는 '아니 오'라고 하였으나 그 전 문항인 '샤워나 목욕을 하였다'에는 '예'라고 답변하였다(증거기록 24쪽). 따라서 피해자의 이 부분 진술에 중대한 모순이 있다고 보기도 어렵다. 피고인 A는 '피해자 스스로 2017. 12. 17. 11시경에는 정신을 차렸다고 진술하고 있는데 피고인 A와 피해자는 위 11시경에 성관계를 하였으므로 피고인 A가 피해자 몰래 성관계를 하고 옷을 그대로 입히는 것은 불가능하다'라고도 주장한다. 그런데 숙소 주변 CCTV 캡쳐 사진에 따르면 피고인 A와 피해자가 숙소에서 함께 나온 시간은 2017. 12. 17. 12:11경이다(증거기록 101쪽), 피해자는 경찰에서 여러 차례 '오전 12시가 거의 다 되었을 때 일어났던 것 같다. 그리고 정신을 차리고 바로 집에 갔다.'라고 진술하였고(증거기록 9쪽, 49쪽, 174쪽), 이 법정에서도 '숙소에서 정신을 차리고 나가기까지 10분을 넘기지 않았다.'라고 명확하게 진술하였다. 다만 피해자는 경찰에서 피고인 A와 대질 신문을 받으면서 피고인 A가 2017. 12. 17. 11시경에 피해자를 깨웠는데 피해자가 피고인 A의 성기 등을 만져 성관계를 하였다고 주장하자 이에 대해 반박하면서, '11시경이면 술이 다 깼을 텐데 정신을 차리고 피고인 A와 성관계한 기억이 없다'라고 진술하거나, '제가 11시가 넘어 정신을 차리고 피고인 A 허벅지인지 신체 어느 부위를 손으로 때려서 깨웠던 게 신체접촉의 전부였다'라고 진술하였을 뿐이다(증거기록 174, 177쪽). 따라서 피해자가 11시경에 정신을 차렸다고 명확히 진술한 것으로 보기 어렵다. 또한 피고인 A의 진술 이외에는 피고인 A와 피해자가 11시경에 성관계를 하였다.고 인정할 만한 근거가 전혀 없고, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 A의 진술은 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

4) It is difficult to believe that Defendant A’s statement is reversed or contrary to the rule of experience as follows.

① 피고인 A는 이 사건에서 가장 핵심적인 부분인 성관계 당시 피해자가 어떠한 상태에 있었고, 어떠한 방식으로 성관계에 동의했는지에 대하여 진술을 번복하였다. 즉, 피고인 A는 경찰에서는 "당일 11시경 일어나 피해자를 깨웠는데 피해자가 먼저 성기를 만졌고, 옷을 벗기려고 했더니 엉덩이를 들어 스스로 옷을 벗어서 성관계를 한 것이다."라고 진술하였으나(증거기록 70쪽, 180쪽), 검찰에서는 "피해자가 먼저 성기를 손으로 주물럭 거렸다. 제가 피해자의 음부를 만지니 피해자가 저의 성기를 강하게 만졌다. 그래서 '할까'라고 말을 했고 피해자는 눈을 감은 상태에서 '응'이라고 이야기를 하고 스스로 자신의 스타킹과 속옷을 무릎까지 내렸다."라고 하여 피해자가 말로 명시적인 동의를 한 것처럼 진술하였다(증거기록 274쪽). 또한 피고인 A는 경찰에서는 '피해자와 관계하면서 아이컨택도 하였다.'라고 진술한 반면(증거기록 73쪽), 검찰에서는 '성관계하면서 피해자가 눈을 뜨고 있었는지는 모르겠다.'라고 하고, 검사가 재차 '5분 정도 성관계를 하면서 피해자가 눈을 뜨고 있었는지한 번도 본 적이 없는가요'라고 묻자, 또다시 '피해자가 눈을 떴는지 모르겠다.'라고 진술하였다(증거기록 276쪽).

② Defendant A and the victim were in the relationship between the chief of office and his employee, and they did not have any scarcity or have any scarcity. However, it is not easy for Defendant A and the victim to recover consciousness between three to four hours at a 07:41 a.m. on the same day, and to have sexual intercourse with Defendant A’s sexual organ, which is only a shoulderer’s club fee, and without any way without any way.

In this regard, Defendant A asserts that there was an important change in the relationship between the victim and Defendant A after the sex relationship, in light of the fact that the victim used the end of his life to Defendant A, and then sent Defendant A the end of his life to Defendant A, and that Defendant A brought his house to Defendant A, which led Defendant A to such change.

그러나 피해자는 이 사건 이전인 2017. 12. 10.경에도 피고인 A가 '저장'이라고 하자 '뭐야'라고 대답하고, 2017. 12. 12.경에도 피고인 A가 피해자가 J 이모티콘을 사달라고 하는 것에 대하여 '시끄러'라고 하자 '얄짤없네.', '자야지'라고 하는 등 반말과 존댓말을 섞어서 사용하였다(증거기록 59, 60쪽). 또한 피해자는 이 법정에서 피고인 A에게 집에 데려다 달라고 한 이유에 대해 '(몸) 상태가 안 좋았다.'라고 진술하였는데, 당일 오전까지 술을 마셔 만취한 상태로 의식을 잃었던 피해자의 몸 상태는 실제로 좋지 않았을 것으로 보인다. 피고인들과 함께 술을 마시다가 만취하여 집이 아닌 I 직원 숙소에서 자다가 정신을 차린 상황이라면 피해자가 함께 술을 마셨던 직장 동료 피고인 A에게 집으로 데려다 달라고 요구하는 것이 그다지 이례적인 일도 아니다.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that there was an important change in the relationship between Defendant A and the victim solely on the grounds alleged by Defendant A.

5) The circumstances after the instant case also support the credibility of the victim’s statement. In other words, the victim sent J to the Defendant at home and the Defendant’s first time, and sent shower. However, if the victim, from the beginning, is memory of the fact of sexual intercourse with the Defendant A, and for this reason, the victim did not send J closely with the Defendant A, such as “I do not first have her sexual intercourse,” and if there was a purpose to receive or dismiss the agreement with the Defendant, I do not seem to have reached a shower for evidence to prove sexual relationship. This would be consistent with the victim’s statement that the victim did not know of the sexual intercourse with the Defendant at 9:00 p.m. on the day, and that it was difficult for the Defendant and the victim did not first consent to “Abucker’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant,” which was the most natural evidence that the victim reported to the police in accordance with the conversation between the Defendant and the Defendant and the victim, and that the victim did not consent to “A’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2.”

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for each year and six months to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for rapes (subject to 13 years of age or older)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 2 years to 6 years, 5 years

B. Defendant B

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for rape (subject to the age of 13 or more) Type 1 (General Rape)

[Special Mitigation] Ad hoc Inspector

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment from 1 year to 6 years

3. The crime of this case committed by the Defendants, who are the head of the drinking house, together with the victim who is an employee, are drinking alcohol with the victim, and the victim, who was in a state of avoiding the victim’s ability to resist, is not highly likely to be quasi-rapeed. As a result, the victim seems to have suffered a huge physical and mental pain. Nevertheless, the Defendant A did not object to denying his/her criminal act with the intent that the victim first impruded himself/herself, and the victim sought a severe punishment against the Defendant in this court. This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, Defendant B made a confession of his own offense at the investigative agency, and even in this court, the victim is not wanting to punish Defendant B by mutual consent with the victim. There is no previous conviction exceeding the fine against the Defendants. This is favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, the conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of committing the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances.

Registration of Personal Information

Where a conviction is finalized on the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, the Defendants are subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and they are obligated to submit personal information to the competent authority pursuant to Article 43 of