logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.24 2017노4427
강제추행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances as delineated below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found that part of the facts charged in this case is guilty even if it is true.

1) As to the part that "the defendant puts the victim's chest into the victim's inner part and delivered the victim's chest," the defendant was only the victim's gate, with the victim's gate.

2) As to the part that “the victim resisted that she would only cause the victim’s shoulder so that she could not cause the victim,” the victim’s chest continued to appear after she could not cause the victim.” As to the part, the Defendant retired from indecent conduct immediately after the victim resisted in diving.

3) As to the part that “the victim’s her her son was indecently committed against the victim’s her fel,” the Defendant did not have any her son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

B. The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year of probation observation order, one year of community service order, 120 hours of community service order, 40 hours of lecture order for treatment of sexual assault, and the burden of litigation costs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant concealed the victim as indicated in its holding.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the court of the court below, the victim was locked on the back side of the Defendant’s vehicle in the court of the court below’s ruling that “I want to go back the Defendant’s business trip and drink with the customer,” but the Defendant was at the latest.

In this regard, two protections have been done.

arrow