logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.05.27 2015고단2255
강제추행
Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, around November 19, 2015, committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim E (V, 46 years old) around D main shop in the seventh floor of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Building on November 19, 2015.

2. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, including the police statements of the victim E, it is recognized that the Defendant’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her son

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was her her her her son with the intent to force the victim to commit an indecent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant was in a significant drinking state at the main point of the instant case. While the victim was expected to talk with the chief executive officer of the main store, the victim said that her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her b

② Accordingly, the chief executive officer of the main place of business who the victim saw the victim to be the representative of the main place of business. The chief executive officer of the main place of business referred to the Defendant “I promptly know the Defendant that the Defendant is the person working in this context.”

I swear.

The term “assumed” used in the context of this case.

(3) That the victim did not assault or threaten the defendant at an investigative agency.

A statement was made by the defendant to the effect that the defendant was her her mar at the time when her mar was her her mar, and that the witness F at the time made a statement to the effect that the defendant was her mard with the victim's mar.

④ 피고인은 수사기관에서 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 피해 자를 주점 종업원으로 착각하여 화장실 위치를 물었는데 피해자가 이를 듣지 못한 것 같아 피해자의 허리 부위를 1번 툭 쳤을 뿐이라고 주장하고,...

arrow