At around 22:00 on June 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) laid the her knee in the Defendant’s knee, feling the her knee in the knee; (b) laid the kne in the kne; (c) laid down the knife into the knife; (d) laid down the knife; (c) laid down the knife; (d) laid down the knife; and (e) committed an indecent act by force against the Appellant by inserting the knife by inserting the knife into the knife.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416 Decided July 24, 2014, etc.). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the record of the instant case, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having led to the degree that the instant facts charged are true.

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the instant facts charged, singing together with the complainants, did not commit an indecent act against the complainants as stated in the instant facts charged; and (b) the Defendant, at the time of singing, continued to singing the Handphones and reported the Handphones to the end; and (c) in the event the Defendant committed an indecent act against the complainants, the Defendant singing the knick in the sing room while running the sing room.

(2) The sole evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case at closed singing room is the statement of the complainant. The complainant is limited to the investigative agency and this court.