2017Do1774 A. Indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act

(b)False;

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm B

Attorney in charge C, D

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No4101 Decided October 13, 2017

September 13, 2018

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the credibility of the victim's statement on the ground that the victim's investigative agency and the court statement correspond to each of the facts charged of this case (excluding the part not guilty) are reliable and specific, in full view of the result of the first instance court's examination of evidence and the result of the examination of the victim's witness additionally made at the court below, etc., and there are no unreasonable or contradictory parts in the contents of the statement itself. The court below found the defendant guilty according to these victim's statement, etc.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the credibility of the victim’s statement, party acts, etc., thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, even if the defendant did not perform an indecent act by compulsion and only a normal postponement, the possibility of injury to the victim cannot be ruled out in the process. Thus, even based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim’s injury was caused by the indecent act itself or the act incidental thereto.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on injury in the crime of bodily injury resulting from indecent act

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jae-chul et al.

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee