beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Sexual assault...
Reasons
1. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the charges in this case and dismissed the prosecutor’s request for attachment order, and only the Defendant filed an appeal on the part of the judgment below regarding the Defendant’s case, and the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed by the court below was separated and confirmed to the extent of the appeal period. The scope of the court’s judgment is limited to the part concerning the
2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the basis of the unrefluent evidence as follows. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
1) With respect to the point of indecent act by force against the victim E on May 2012, the Defendant did not have committed indecent act by force as stated in this part of the facts charged. The record (Evidence No. 143 of the record) recording the victim’s statement at the police station on the charge of this part of the facts charged states that “The police questioning of the police that asked the victim about how the time when the Defendant made indecent act by force on May 2, 2012 is the time when the Defendant made indecent act by force on the victim’s speech is the time when the Defendant made indecent act by force on June 2, 2012, the victim responded to the police’s question that “the mother was dynafed, and the mother was dynafed, so the victim’s statement on this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been fully reliable, and therefore, the victim’s statement on this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been entirely reliable, in relation to E’s indecent act by force on June 16, 2012.
In relation to this part of the facts charged, D stated to the effect that the criminal defendant had observed indecent act by compulsion of the victim at the investigative agency.