logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노1993
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

Of the guilty portion and the innocent portion of the judgment of the court below, the number 1, 3 through 12, 14, 28 through 28 shall be set forth in the annexed list of crimes.

Reasons

The Defendant, at around 15:00 on March 23, 2014, taken the part of the charge of the charge of the non-guilty portion against his will the body part of an unspecified woman over 31 times, as described in the attached Table No. 1, No. 3, and No. 32 on March 21, 2013, including taking the part of a female’s bridge in the name of the victim who was seated in a bench using a cell phone of Kamera (Nokia) and taking the part of the victim’s bridge, which was seated in a bench using a cell phone of Kameras, and taken the body part of an unspecified woman, etc. over 31 times, as indicated in the attached Table No. 1, No. 3,

Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of the victims who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a mobile phone with the camera function against their will.

For the following reasons, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the facts charged in the above Paragraph (1) constituted a case where there is no evidence of crime.

The above photographs taken by the defendant do not take the specific parts of the body of all women in the distance of distance from a specific angle, but take one or several images from a somewhat away distance from the general visual height.

Although a knee part of a bridge is exposed to knee in a short relationship with a female subject to filming, it cannot be viewed as an excessive exposure exceeding the ordinary level of women of the same age group in the downtown.

The Defendant appears to have caused the birth of diverse, freely, openly, and openly held clothes of women in Seoul Metropolitan City without being familiar with domestic culture because the period of stay in the Republic of Korea as a shipbuilding of Chinese nationality was not open to the Republic of Korea. The Defendant appears to have caused the pictures of this case to be taken.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The photographs recorded in the facts charged in the above paragraph (1) that the defendant taken by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles shall be taken.

arrow