“E located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju at around 20:30 on October 1, 2016, the Defendant of “2017 Godan 41” Dao to the Victim F (F, 20 years of age, Ga, Ga) who was honding in his side tables, and was honding in his side tables.”

“A indecent act committed an indecent act against the victim at a place where the public is densely concentrated by asking the victim “,” with the victim’s knife and with the victim’s knife on his part, and by drinking the victim’s knife.

20:30 on October 1, 2016, the Defendant “E” in the “E” restaurant located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, about 20:30 on October 1, 2016, and D to the Victim G (V, 37 years of age, Gaz) who is an employee.

“In doing so, the victim committed an indecent act at a place where the general public is concentrated by asking the victim’s body on the part of the victim’s ear, and pushing the victim’s body on the right chest part of the victim’s body.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 41"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A president of the F;

1. The results of the reproduction of CCTV images in a cafeteria 2017 Height 202;

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A complaint filed by G;

1. Application of CCTV analysis-related statutes;

1. Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Selection of Fines concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, which are applicable to the crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. A fine of two million won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one-day conversion amount: 100,000 won);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence (i.e., the fact that the Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, that the Defendant had no record of any particular criminal punishment before, that the Defendant deposited a considerable amount of money to the victims, or endeavored to recover damage, and that the Defendant would not be subject to re-offending even if he did not sentence the sentence, given favorable consideration to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant would have been expected to have committed a re-offending).