2019 High Court Decision 1159 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

Indecent Acts in Action)

A

In order of transfer (prosecution) and Kim Jin-hee (Trial)

Law Firm Gyeongpon

Attorney Park Young-young

September 18, 2019

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

At around 18:25 on December 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) taken a train of subway 9 lines in Seocho-gu Seoul, and was in the direction of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, using the gap in which passengers were congested; (b) 1stm of the damaged female 1’s sexual flag was pushed off on the part of the damaged female 1’s macker and white macker; and (c) 2nd of the damaged female 2nd of the name unexplosive macker who was newly taken off in the old macker Station, the Defendant her sexual whistle part was pushed off on the part of the damaged female 2’s macker for a number of minutes; and (d) her sexual whistle part was pushed off with another macker of the same electric macker, and then she was pushed off from the same macker’s name to the same macker’s name; and (d) her sexual macked on the part of the damaged female.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against three victims in a densely concentrated place by the public.

2. Determination

A. According to the witness B’s legal statement, investigation report, CD 2, etc., there is a doubt as to whether the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victims by taking advantage of the concentrated situation of the former passengers. However, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value that leads to the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the guilt, such as the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined as the Defendant’s benefit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006; 2010Do14877, Apr. 28, 2011).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victims as stated in the facts charged.

1) The image taken by a police officer does not have the face of the victim’s sexual organ being sealed. 2) While the body of the defendant was taken in a place where the victim’s sexual organ is pushed ahead, it appears that the time is very complicated time in subway 9-line rapid transit trains, so that it could not be avoided to some extent. 3) The defendant was pushed ahead of the victim’s sexual organ during the victim’s sexual organ, but the victims did not follow the victim’s sexual organ or undergo the same behavior, and there was no investigation into the victims. 4) Even if the victim’s sexual intercourse was made in front of the victim’s sexual organ, it cannot be concluded that the defendant’s bodily harm and kneeel did not have kneeved the victim’s sexual organ. However, even if the victim’s sexual intercourse was made in front of the victim’s sexual organ, it cannot be concluded that the defendant made a kneeek and knee in the facts charged.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the acquittal is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is not publicly announced.

Judges Park Young-soo