(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.1.10. 선고 2018고합671 판결

An assistant officer, a volunteer officer, a peripheral number of soldiers, a net order of booms, a maximum return, a plenary session, a record (public trial).

Defense Counsel

Attorney Lee Young-young (National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

January 10, 2019

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the defendant to be put on probation.

A seized kacker (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

The period of the registration of personal information against the defendant shall be ten years.

Reasons

Criminal 1)

The defendant committed the following crimes under the status that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the interpolartic and mental disorder:

[2018Gohap671]

1. Special violence;

피고인은 2018. 6. 17. 14:30경 서울 중구 동호로 257에 있는 '장충단공원'에서 산책을 하고 있던 피해자 B(여, 45세)이 피고인의 옆을 지나가자 피해자가 여성이면서도 제대로 씻지 않아 냄새가 난다는 이유로 위험한 물건인 커터칼(전체길이 19cm, 칼날길이 7cm, 증 제1호)을 손수건을 감아 왼손에 쥔 채 오른손 주먹으로 위 피해자의 얼굴을 1회 때렸다.

Accordingly, the defendant possessed dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

2. Larceny;

On June 26, 2018, around 09:50, the Defendant stolen approximately 80 plastic boxes ( approximately 3km) equivalent to KRW 32,000, the market price of the victim E (Nam, 62 years of age) owned by the victim E (V), which was contained in plastic plastic bags, from the 'D' adjacent stairs located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, up to 10 meters.

[2018Gohap804]

1. Damage to property;

A. On June 20, 2018, around 19:15, the Defendant destroyed the advertising board owned by the victim, on the ground that the president of the G Bank did not take delivery, in front of the G Bank Museum of the Victim G Bank located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to the extent that the repair cost equivalent to KRW 100,000 is cut.

B. On June 21, 2018, around 07:20, the Defendant damaged the victim I’s photograph, which was the victim I’s market price, owned by the former president of the H, to the extent that he was not guilty, in front of the president of the Seoul detention center, which was located in 143, Mayang-ro, Mayang-ro, Masan-ro, 143.

다. 피고인은 2018. 6. 22. 08:20경 같은 장소에서, H 전 대통령의 무죄 석방 시위를 하는 피해자 J 소유의 시가 미상의 스티로폼 입간판 1개를 부숴 손괴하였다.

라. 피고인은 2018. 6. 23. 15:00경 같은 장소에서, H 전 대통령의 무죄 석방 시위를 하는 피해자 J 소유의 시가 미상의 H 전 대통령 사진 1장을 찢고 수개의 피켓을 부숴 손괴하였다.

E. At around 14:00 on June 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the victim I’s photograph of the former president of H, the market price of which was the victim I’s prior president’s release of innocence at the same place; and (b) destroyed the tear.

2. Violence;

A. On June 21, 2018, around 07:20 on June 21, 2018, the Defendant assaulted twice by the Defendant’s satisf’s son of the victim (son, 6*) who prevented the Defendant from causing the Defendant’s property damage in front of the Seoul detention center, which was located in 143, Jinyang-si, Joh-si.

B. Around 14:00 on June 24, 2018, the Defendant, in front of the Seoul detention center located in 143, Jinyang-ro, Mayang-ro, 143, had the victim I (n, 6*) who was prevented from causing the Defendant’s property damage, and assaulted the victim K (n, 5*) who committed the above assault.

3. Fraud;

around 03:15 on June 23, 2018, the Defendant did not pay 40,460 won a taxi fee, while he/she arrived in front of the Seoul House located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, on the same day at around 0-23:57, when he/she went to a 0-si operated by the victim N, while driving on approximately 23.491km at around 23:5; and on the same day, he/she did not pay a 40,460 won a taxi fee, while he/she did not pay a 40,000 won a taxi fee.

4. Larceny;

On June 23, 2018, in front of the Seoul detention center, which was located in 143, Goyang-si, 16:30, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with one copy of the president’s photograph and one copy of the president’s photo in the market price owned by the former president of H, and one copy of the earth’s photo in the market price equivalent to KRW 1,500, the market price.

[2018Gohap871]

1. Damage to property;

At around 20:30 on June 17, 2018, the Defendant destroyed the air condition of KRW 500,000,000 in the market value of the victim R owned by the Defendant, which was installed there on the ground that Q or door was not opened before Q or door in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

2. Injury;

The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in Paragraph 1, was sealed by the victim R (ma, 57 years of age) against the Defendant’s hand, and was strokeed by the victim’s hand in a state beyond the floor with the victim, and was strokeed by a stroke for about two weeks of treatment.

[2018Gohap887]

피고인은 2018. 6. 22. 14:22경 서울 종로구에 있는 'OOO' 옷가게 매장에 손님으로 방문하여 그곳 종업원인 피해자 S(여, 22세)에게 "남자를 만나려면 힘 좋은 사람을 만나라, 그래야 쭉쭉 잘 싸야 임신이 잘된다."라고 말하면서 피해자에게 악수를 하자고 청하여 악수를 한 상태에서 손가락 2개로 피해자의 손바닥을 반복하여 문지르고 수십 초간 피해자의 손을 잡은 채로 놓아주지 않고, 뒤이어 빈 생수통을 자신의 성기 앞부분에 대고 마치 자신의 성기인 것처럼 잡고서 피해자에게 다가가 피해자의 귀에 대고 "합방을 하자, 내가 같이 살자고 하는 것이다, 연락을 하겠다."라고 말하는 등 피해자를 강제로 추행하였다.

[20187 983]

At around 11:25 on June 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) boarded the off-going train 7-4 off the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and had a serious smell to passengers; and (b) on the ground that the victim V (ma, 34 years old) who was in receipt of a report and called the Defendant that the Defendant would not slick down in the train, and the Defendant would not sliff in the train; (c) knife the knife (21cm in length, 5cm in the knife length) which is a dangerous object carrying the knife in the train; and (d) knife the victim, and (e) the knife the knife and knife the knife of the knife, if you want to do so."

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

[2018Gohap1173]

1. Damage to property;

A. On June 24, 2018, at around 00:50, the Defendant destroyed the victim X operated by Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu Y’s restaurant, on the ground that the distance around the Cheongdae-gu Y’s Y, which was set at the front of the Cheongdae-gu Y’s restaurant, was dumped, and the victim’s market price owned by the victim was 100,000 won above the floor and damaged it.

B. At around 2018, 6, 24, 01:00, the Defendant destroyed the Victim AB operated by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu Z on the ground that the distance around the Cheongdae is lowered due to the fall short of the distance from the Cheongdae, the Defendant destroyed the victim’s market price, which was located there, by exceeding 100,000 won, on the floor.

Summary of Evidence

[2018Gohap671]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement to E and AC;

1. Each written statement E, AD and B;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a victim's image on his/her upper part), investigation report (person for reference AD telephone conversations), seizure report (any submission), investigation report (related to the degree of damage and damage of the victim), investigation report (related to the degree of damage and damage situations), and investigation report (Listening to a victim's E phone statement);

1. On-site photographs, photographs of victims, and photographs of criminal tools used by the suspect;

[2018Gohap804]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement to J, I, and K;

1. Each statement of AE, I, AF, J, N, and K;

1. Investigation reports, telephone conversations for reference, investigation reports, internal investigation reports, investigation reports (in relation to criminal acts of the victim), and reports on theft;

1. Receipts:

1. A photograph of the advertisement board, and each damaged photograph;

[2018Gohap871]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant or R;

1. AR statement;

1. 112 Report, report on handling of the case, and report on diagnosis of the injury (R);

[2018Gohap887]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement of S;

1. The S Statement;

1. A survey report (on-siteCCTV investigation) and a survey report (CCTV image analysis);

1. 112. List of reported cases;

1. On-site photographs, CD two copies;

[2018Gohap983]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement 1 and V of the police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. A criminal investigation report and a criminal investigation report;

1. Photographs (kacker-kacker kacker);

[2018Gohap1173]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement of AA;

1. Investigation report (victim X telephone conversations) and investigation report (the investigation of a counter party to Bags AG);

1. Images and damaged photographs in front of a Y restaurant, and fireproofs and damaged photographs before a AB control point;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (special assault, choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of each Criminal Act, Article 329 of each Criminal Act, Article 366 of each Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Act, Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Act, Article 284 and Article

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

구 형법(2018. 12. 18. 법률 제15982호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제10조 제2항, 제55조 제1항 제3호(① 피고인은 양극성 정동장애 등의 정신병으로 수년간 치료를 받아왔으며 최근에도 2016. 9. 8.부터 2017. 11. 4.까지 423일간, 2017. 11. 7.부터 2018. 5. 30.까지 205일간 AH병원에서 입원치료를 받아온 것으로 보이고, 이 사건 각 범행이 그 치료중단 이후로 보이는 2018. 6. 17.부터 2018. 6. 26.까지 사이에 발생한 점, ② 2018. 7. 12. 서울구치소에서 피고인을 진료한 AI병원의 정신과 전문의는 '피고인에게 조현병 또는 양극성 정동장애 증상이 있다.'는 취지의 의견을 밝힌 점, ③ 피고인은 자신이 'AJ 전 대통령과 AK 여사의 수양아들'이라거나 'H 전 대통령의 남편'이라고 주장하며 H 전 대통령의 사진을 손괴하였고, 수사기관에서도 같은 취지의 진술을 반복하였는데, 이는 조현병 또는 양극성 정동장애의 증상인 과대망상으로 보이는 점, ④ 피해자 E의 플라스틱 통을 가져간 이유에 대해서 '플라스틱 통은 AL 대통령의 똘마니다. 피해자가 대통령에게 과잉충성을 하기 위해 놓아두었다.'고 진술한 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 이 사건 각 범행 당시 조현병 또는 양극성 정동장애로 인해 사물을 변별하거나 의사를 결정할 능력이 미약한 상태에 있었음을 인정할 수 있다.)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravation of concurrent crimes resulting from the severe indecent act by force)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 16(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. The proviso to Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Exempted from Order to attend a lecture (the special circumstance where a defendant is unable to impose an order to attend a lecture is acknowledged, in full view of the communication ability, accident history and long-term medical care, living records, etc. of the defendant, in light of the acts and actions, etc. conducted by an investigation agency and this court, etc.

1. To exempt the public disclosure order, notification order and employment restriction order;

Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the proviso to Article 49(1), the proviso to Article 50(1), the proviso to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the fact that there is no history of punishment against the defendant as a sexual crime, the sentence of imprisonment to the defendant, probation, and the registration of personal information can expect the effect of recidivism to a certain extent. In addition, considering the contents of the crime, the method and result of the crime, the defendant's age, intelligence, mental state, social relationship, disclosure order, disclosure order, notification order, the benefit expected by employment restriction order, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the defendant's personal information, it is determined that there are special circumstances where the defendant should not disclose and notify the defendant's personal information, and special circumstances where the employment restriction order should not be issued).

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Judgment on larceny

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant did not attempt to steal because of his idea that the person might go to go to the near, if the person falls off.

B. Determination

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, namely, ① the plastic transit of the instant case was a thing that could be easily and easily transported, ② the Defendant’s possession of the victim would be sufficient to regard the distance from the location where the plastic transit was installed to the extent of 10 meters, ③ the Defendant brought about the victim who resisted that he would be her and she would bring about the victim’s goods.” Furthermore, it appears that the Defendant was acting on the premise that she was not the Defendant, i.e., e., she would bring about the theft by removing the victim who is the owner. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

2. Judgment on the crime of destroying and damaging property

A. Summary of the assertion

It is true that the defendant intentionally has teared the advertising board by exceeding the advertising board. However, the defendant did not intend to destroy the advertising board in excess of the advertising board, but did not have any intent to impair the utility of the advertising board.

B. Determination

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant had an internal intent to recognize the possibility of intentionally damaging the advertising board and to accept it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. Determination on the crime of indecent act by compulsion

A. Summary of the assertion

피고인이 피해자와 악수를 한 상태에서 손가락 2개로 피해자의 손바닥을 반복하여 문지르고 수십 초간 피해자의 손을 잡은 채로 놓아주지 않은 사실, 피해자에게 귀속말을 한 사실은 인정한다. 그러나 피고인은 생수통을 자신의 성기인 것처럼 잡고 피해자를 구석에 몰아붙인 사실이 없고, 피해자에게 귓속말로 '부모님께 효도해라.'고 했을 뿐 "합방을 하자, 내가 같이 살자고 하는 것이다, 연락을 하겠다."라고 말한 적이 없다. 따라서 피고인의 행위가 성희롱에 해당함은 별론으로 하고 강제추행에 해당하지는 않는다.

B. Relevant legal principles

The crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only the case of indecent act after the other party makes it difficult to resist by resorting to violence or intimidation, but also the case where the act of assault itself is deemed to be an indecent act. In this case, the assault is not necessarily necessary to suppress the other party's will.

An indecent act means an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an act constitutes an indecent act ought to be determined carefully in full view of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual moral sense in the age (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, Sept. 10, 2015).

C. Determination

According to the police statement of the victim S S, the statement of the victim S S S, the field photograph, and the CD II, etc., the fact that the defendant made a speech or behavior against the victim who cannot respond to the defendant who is a customer, as shown in the facts of the crime, is recognized.

Furthermore, considering the victim’s intent, gender, age, the Defendant’s specific act, the victim’s speech and behavior, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s above speech and behavior, and the objective situation, etc. established by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such speech and behavior as stated in the Defendant’s judgment constitutes an indecent act of indecent act by compulsion against the victim’s sexual freedom, which objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality. The Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Special assault;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 6 (Special Violence)

【Special Mitigation Doctrine (D Doctrine)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from February to February (Discretionary)

(b) special intimidation;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 4 (Cumulative Offense, Special Intimidation)

【Special Mitigation Doctrine (D Doctrine)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from February to February (Discretionary)

[Determination of Punishment] The first type of indecent act by force (general indecent act by force) on the general standard

【Special Mitigation Doctrine (D Doctrine)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to one year (Mitigation)

(d) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Two months to two years of imprisonment;

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant committed multiple short-term crimes and committed many criminal records of the same kind. Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not easy.

However, as the Defendant was under 70 years of age and was under way hospitalized treatment for several years due to stimulative disorder, and was temporarily unable to receive appropriate treatment, the symptoms of mental illness have deteriorated, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the state of lacking mental and physical disorder. The amount of damage caused by fraud, theft, property damage and damage is relatively minor. Victims E, victims X, R, and AA do not want to be punished against the Defendant. The Defendant’s East AM promised to protect the Defendant and receive hospitalized treatment.

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, character and conduct, intelligence, family relationship, etc.

Duties to register and submit personal information;

Where a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive on the crime of indecent act by compulsion, the defendant is a person subject to registration of personal information under Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and is obligated to submit personal information to the competent authority pursuant to Article

In the case of a defendant, the registration period of personal information in accordance with Article 45(1)3 and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is 15 years. In light of the nature of the punishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion in the judgment which causes the registration of personal information and the other crime of the crime of indecent act by compulsion in the judgment which causes the registration of personal information, severity of the crime, relation, the age of the defendant, etc., it is deemed unreasonable to determine the registration period in accordance with Article 45(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

On June 26, 2018, at around 09:50, the Defendant used approximately 80 plastic boxes ( approximately 3 km) equivalent to KRW 32,00 in the market price owned by the victim E (Nam, 62 years of age) who had been placed in a plastic bag in a plastic bag in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 26,018.

The defendant, who observed this in India, expressed that "the victim would have taken the other's goods, thief if he would have taken the other's goods, thief)", and took the bath for the purpose of avoiding the return of the goods, when she taken the face of the victim as drinking, and continued to see the Domination of the Domination being used in his hand, and then threatened the victim with the above Domination of Domination by stating that "the Domination of Domination is flick," and that "the Domination of Domination is flick."

Accordingly, the defendant, as a larceny, abused and threatened the victim for the purpose of resisting the recovery of property as a larceny.

2. Relevant legal principles

In the crime of robbery, "the purpose of resisting the recovery of stolen property" is to oppose once thief moves thief property under his exclusive control and against the victim's seizure of the seized property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2316, Jul. 25, 2003).

3. Determination

In light of the following facts acknowledged by the record and the circumstances that can be inferred from the record, the Defendant appears to have committed assault and bath against the victim under extreme interest due to mental disorder, such as stimulative disorder, which is a thief, and it does not seem that there was a purpose to resist the recovery of property.

① As seen earlier, the Defendant was receiving medical treatment for several years due to a bipolar disorder, and was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions. Furthermore, the Defendant is deemed to have engaged in acts, such as expressing excessive labor or assault, bath, self-harm, etc., when his/her plan is obstructed or interrupted due to a bipolar disorder.

② The Defendant: (a) committed an act, such as collecting plastics from the victim as soon as possible after assaulting the victim, and assaulting the victim. Since then, the Defendant: (b) was satisfyed on the vehicular road before and after the victim was satisfyed; (c) was satisfyed on the victim’s side; and (d) was satisfyed on the victim’s side for reporting 112; and (c) was satisfyed by the police officer in receipt of the victim’s report; and (d) was staying at the scene until the victim was dispatched. If the Defendant’s purpose of avoiding property was to resisting the recovery of property, the Defendant’s speech and behavior appears to have been committed by collecting plastics as soon as possible after the assaulting the victim and attempting to escape. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act and behavior can be seen as an expression of a saturfy for the victim, but otherwise, as an act of resisting property

③ The Defendant, at the police station, made a non-mark in plastic form, and tried to indicate that it would immediately go to the private organizations of the Defendant. However, the Defendant also made a statement to the effect that she would handle Doar dynasium, and that she would be when she handled Doar dynasium. In addition to the above statement, when considering the mental illness and symptoms of the Defendant as seen earlier, and the Defendant’s act shown by the Defendant after assaulting the victim, the Defendant was under the influence of Doar dynasium dynasium, and the Defendant was hynasium and assaulted against the victim due to a mental disorder, such as Doar dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium.

4. Conclusion

If so, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of larceny under Article 325 (2) of the Decision (2018 Gohap671) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant stated that, as stated in the facts constituting a crime [2018Kahap671] paragraph (2) of the same Article, the victim who observed the victim's plastic flock was "I will have to take other things or will have to take them away, thief," and stated that the above article is returned to the victim's face due to flive drinking, and that "I will have to flick flick flick flick flick flick" was "I will have to flick flick flick flick flick flick flick."

2.Wol group

The facts charged in this part are crimes falling under Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Articles 260(3) and 283(3) of the Criminal Act. However, according to the records, the victim E expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant in this Court on August 23, 2018, after the institution of the instant indictment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each part of the facts charged should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty of larceny under Article 327 (2) of the judgment [2018 Gohap671], the decision of dismissal of prosecution shall not be rendered separately.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

Note tin

1) To the extent that the identity of facts charged is recognized and the defendant’s defense is not disadvantaged, the facts charged are revised ex officio as follows (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4419, Nov. 22, 2002).

2) As to the charge [2018 Gohap671] 2 quasi-Robbery, it is judged that the defendant's defense counsel is not guilty on the grounds that the defendant's defense counsel is not guilty on the grounds that the defendant's defense counsel is also dissatisfied with the intention of larceny.

3) Facts constituting the crime [2018 Gohap804] 1-A of the judgment

참조조문

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제16조 제2항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제16조 제4항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제42조 제1항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제45조 제1항 제3호

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제45조 제4항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제47조 제1항

-성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제49조 제1항

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제49조 제1항

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제50조 제1항

-아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제56조 제1항