Dongtan Yeocheong-gye is back again ㄷㄷ

A man in his 20s who was booked for performing indecency while squatting in short shorts was not indicted, and the man’s parents claimed that they were subjected to a coercive investigation by the police.

There is controversy.

According to Hwaseong Dongtan Police Station in Gyeonggi Province on the 8th,

Around August last year, A, a woman in her 60s, was walking with her dog on a street in Yeongcheon-dong, Hwaseong-si.

was doing

In this process

By chance, I ran into Mr. B, a man in his 20s, and Mr. B was squatting down and petting Mr. A’s dog.

It was.

however

Suddenly, Mr. A got startled and ran away.

I started hitting. after

Call 112 to report, “A man touched my dog ​​and showed a certain part of it.”

did.

The time of reporting was 8:07 p.m., and the surrounding area was relatively bright as the sun sets late in the summer and street lights were turned on. After receiving the report, the police dispatched to a closed circuit (closed circuit) near the scene of the incident.

CC

)

TV

The situation at the time could be confirmed through the video.

The police began a full-scale investigation by booking Mr. B on charges of performance obscenity and summoning him for questioning.

took place. result

At the time, Mr. B was wearing only shorts and no underwear, and the shorts were found to be quite short.

done.

However, during the police investigation, Mr. B denied the charges, saying, “It is true that I petted Mr. A’s dog, but I never intentionally showed it (my body).” Nevertheless, the police believed that Mr. B’s charges were sufficiently recognized and sent the case to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment. Afterwards, the prosecution decided not to indict Mr. B due to insufficient evidence.

Mr. C, the author of the article, began by saying, “Do you remember that an almost identical incident happened last year, a female investigator? You accused my son, who had just been discharged from the military, of being a sexual harasser.”

He then claimed, “Let alone the principle of presumption of innocence, it was only later that I became aware of the sexually shaming comments made during the interrogation and by a fellow investigator until he made a false confession without any evidence during the investigation process.”

He was first investigated by the police.

He repeatedly emphasized that even after putting shorts on Mr. B and confirming that no major body parts were exposed, he made comments that caused sexual shame.

If women wear hot pants or tank tops, etc.

If your underwear is visible, are you a sexual harasser?

Of course, Mr. B said he was wearing no panties.

The fact that no body parts are exposed when recreated wearing shorts

Police say he continued to make sexually humiliating remarks even after checking

Isn’t this too much of a violation of the principle of trial of evidence?

There must be evidence that has admissibility and has undergone a legal investigation.

At around 8:17 a.m., a 60-year-old woman gave shocking testimony and was captured on CCTV.

Can it be said that important parts are exposed?

Is there enough probability?

If a man looks at a woman, it’s called gaze harassment.

Dongtan, where if a woman looks at a man, it becomes a public act of indecency.

I don’t know if it was a different police station, but it’s a female office at Tongtan Police Station, which is hot these days.

Doubts arise first.