logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.26 2017노1140
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(준강제추행)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) only attempted to mislead a drunk victim to take care of him/her, and did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the statement of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant (the amount of KRW 10 million, the amount of KRW 40,000, and the program completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of the relevant legal principles as to the defendant's assertion of the facts, as well as whether the contents of the statements conform to the rationality, logical contradiction, or empirical rule, physical evidence, or third party's statement, etc., and whether they conform to the witness's appearance, attitude, and appearance of the witness who is going to the public in the witness examination protocol after being sworn before and after being sworn by a judge, considering all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the witness's appearance, appearance, and appearance of the statement, which are hard to record in the witness examination protocol, shall be evaluated as credibility, and the witness's statement, including the victim, etc., shall not be dismissed without permission, unless there is any other evidence that can objectively be objectively deemed to lack credibility when they correspond to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The court below has duly adopted and examined evidence as follows.

arrow