logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.12.18 2013노1186
강제추행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실오인 피고인이 피해자에게 술을 더 달라고 하면서 피해자의 몸을 툭 건드린 사실은 있으나, 이 사건 공소사실과 같이 추행의 의사로 피해자의 음부를 만진 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 원심은 이 사건 공소사실에 대하여 유죄로 판단하였는바, 원심판결에는 사실을 오인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the instant crime constitutes a crime falling under Article 2(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the Defendant constitutes a “person subject to registration” under Article 42(1) of the same Act where a conviction becomes final and conclusive, and the Defendant must notify the person subject to registration of the fact that he/she is a “person subject to registration” and that he/she has a “ obligation to submit personal information” under Article 43 of the same Act when he/she is convicted of committing the instant crime, although the lower court did not inform the Defendant of the fact that he/she is a person subject to registration and the obligation to submit

In addition, the crime of this case constitutes a sex offense subject to the disclosure order and notification order under Article 47 and Article 49 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which constitutes a sex offense subject to the registration under Article 42 (1) of the same Act, and thus, it is subject to the disclosure order

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of committing the instant crime and omitted judgment on the Defendant’s order of disclosure and notification of personal information, and thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in each of the above respects.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still a ground for the above ex officio reversal.

arrow