beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to consistently state that “the victim resisted immediately after being aware that he had no awareness of drinking at the time, and after being aware that he had his body.” The victim was unable to resist under the influence of alcohol. At the time, the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant used this to commit an indecent act by force against the victim, thereby sufficiently proving the facts charged by indecent act by force against the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. As to the facts charged of the crime of quasi-indecent act by compulsion, the prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment maintains the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and maintains the name of the crime as “indecent act by compulsion”, applicable provisions of law as “Article 298 of the Criminal Act”, and the
C. (1) An application for the amendment of a bill of indictment added to each of the contents as mentioned in paragraph (1) was filed by this court, and this court was added to the subject of the judgment by this court. However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding of facts as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is examined below. (2) The summary of the facts charged was that the defendant, at around 00:00 on February 20, 2014, came to sing the victim E (the 29 years old) who came to sing with the Defendant’s singinging and singing back at the Defendant’s office in the factory where the Defendant is working, and then, the victim was forced to resist the victim by inserting the victim’s singing three diseases into the above office, while the victim was under the influence of drinking and singing the victim’s s knick on the clothes of the victim under the influence of alcohol and forced the victim to resist.
2) The lower court determined that the victim was unable to resist at the time.
or the defendant has taken advantage of the victim's failure to resist.