beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) entered a female toilet as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim was in contact with the victim’s body during the process of leaving the victim’s room to turn off his way with the victim who was going out of the female toilet and was going out of the way. However, as stated in the facts charged in this part, the victim did not have committed an indecent act by force of the victim two to three times, and there was no intent to commit such indecent act.
The statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court of the court below as shown in this part of the facts charged are contradictory to the victim's statements made by E as witness, and are inconsistent with or inconsistent with the CCTV image ( particularly, the time interval between the victim's access from the corner of the coffee shop as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment below to female toilets and the point of view from CCTV images again, and the time interval between the time until the victim was set off from CCTV images and the point of new display in CCTV images is 3 to 4 seconds. However, the victim suffered about 20 seconds from the victim.
By making a statement, there is no credibility of the victim's statement that is contrary to the above CCTV images.
Nevertheless, the court below found the victim guilty of the above facts charged by taking each of the statements at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts 1, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court’s legal doctrine and its legal doctrine are legitimate.