When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 01:00 on August 04, 2014, the Defendant discovered the victim D (nive, 18 years of age) in front of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and prevented him from blocking the path, and “I want to go back to the house of distinguished business, I want to see it, I want to go back to the house of distinguished business, I want to see it at middle school, and I want to see it at middle school,” and, at the same time, the Defendant moved to the arms of the victim and moved to the hand and face.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The defendant's assertion about D's written statement of the police, the defendant, and the defense counsel's assertion that he was in a state of mental and physical disability while being drunk at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to each of the above evidence, although the defendant was found to have drunk at the time of the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

In addition, Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that "where a sexual crime is committed in the state of mental disorder caused by drinking or drugs, Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act may not apply." Thus, it is not appropriate to apply Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act to a sexual crime committed by a defendant on the grounds that the defendant is against the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 298 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed against Order to attend lectures;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is an indecent act by blocking the victim who was going through the 1st time of the new wall and thus, the victim is highly dangerous, and the defendant also tried to punish the defendant.