beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is a member of the “Clocks Association” in the time of the death of the Defendant, and the victim D (A), E, is the believers of the said church.
Juvenile Protection Act (Rape, Indecent Act by Compulsion, etc. against Juveniles)
A. A. On November 2008, the Defendant: (a) around 1, 2008, at the “Chyeong-si,” a single-child computer (hereinafter “Chyeong-si”); (b) held a single-child computer on his knee-knee-knee-knee-kne; (c) held the victim’s hand by inserting his hand on the victim’s upper part; (d) placed the victim’s chest into the victim’s chest; and (e) placed the victim’s finger on the part of the victim’s negative part; and (e) forced
B. On February 2008, the Defendant: (a) placed the fingers on the side of the victim’s seat of his driver’s car driving in the French area in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si (at that time, 14 years old); and (b) committed an indecent act by force against the juvenile victim.
C. On February 2008, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim (at that time, 14 years of age) who works on a computer at his dwelling space located in the Defendant’s dwelling room located in Sundays Sacheon-si, 2008, by inserting his hand in the victim’s inner part, and by forcing the juvenile victim to commit an indecent act.
The Defendant, from October 2009 to December 2 of the same year, committed an indecent act on the victim’s chest by forcing the victim, who was a juvenile, to have knee knee knee, displayed obscene video products showing sexual intercourse with the victim, by inserting his hand into the victim’s inner part, and by taking charge of the victim’s chest.
2. We examine the judgment. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is a crime falling under Article 7(2) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765, Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter the same) and Article 298 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the victim under the proviso to Article 16 and subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The records are the same.