(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노1757 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노1757

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등

Text

The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (two million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the event of the instant crime, the Defendant had an intentional intent to photograph “the body of a victim who may cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a mechanical device with a camera function” at the time of the instant crime. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) In so doing, the sentence of unfair sentencing (the guilty part of the lower judgment) sentenced by the lower court (the fine of two million won) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Article 15 and Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (“Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) provides that the first prosecutor shall apply the applicable provisions to the case in the trial, and shall change

4. Two photographs of “B” were taken, but they were attempted to do so, but the photographer did not do so, and the photographed “B”, “B” did not go through, but did not go through, the intention, and the modification of a bill of amendment to the contents to be changed, respectively. Since this Court permitted this, the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below could not be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

2) The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 11:50 on April 15, 2019, the Defendant sought to take the victim H telegraph, which had been in the state of body, into the Defendant’s cell phone, and tried to take the Defendant’s cell phone, but was attempted to take the Defendant’s cell phone of the victim H, which had been in the state of body. However, the Defendant failed to take the photographer.

Accordingly, the defendant can cause sexual humiliation or shame using devices with the camera function.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2019.09.19 2019고단589

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.15 2019고단376

-대구지방법원 2017.09.26 2017고단4073

-서울남부지방법원 2015.10.02 2015고단1528

-인천지방법원 2017.04.19 2016고단8427