beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On April 15, 2018, the Defendant, at around 19:15, 19:15, was in front of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and Ccafeteria, with the victim D (the victim, 43 years old), Madsor, and Madsor, who was aware of neighbors before being able to do so, and the victim's knife and knife the victim's knife with his knife with his knife with his knife, and again used 5-6 parts of the victim's knife with the victim's knife with his knife that the victim
Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. In light of the fact that the police statement of D (the summons sent to D was not served as a closed door, the phone number of D was also suspended or terminated, and the phone number of D was set off at the workplace, and the data detection request for D was made, but the location cannot be grasped, etc., it is reasonable to view D as constituting “where D is unable to make a statement on the court date due to unknown whereabouts or any other similar cause” as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, in light of the developments leading up to D’s report to the police on the day of damage, the details and details of damage, the relationship with the Defendant, etc., there is no room to make a false statement, and there is no specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the content of the statement. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that D’s report on the day of damage was made by the police or the preparation of the above written statement, and there is no room to prove the unique situation as stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act).
1. The Defendant’s determination on whether to recognize the act of indecent act against CCTV images has a fact that the victim’s fingers were flick with his fingers as recorded in the facts charged, but it is not clear that the victim’s fingers were flick, such as the victim, and the Defendant is the victim.