The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

On December 1, 2018, at around 20:30 on December 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stamped the victim C (the 32-year-old age-old) with his/her photo affixed to the victim C (the 32-year-old-gun), and (b) caused the victim to escape from his/her name and her eye into his/her bathing tank; (c) brought the victim’s left chest with his/her eye, and (d) caused him/her to see, “I need to do so.” At the victim’s entrance, the Defendant puts the victim’s neck and the right chest with his/her mouth; and (d) put the Defendant’s finger inside the victim’s body.

Dudly repeated actions were committed.

Accordingly, the Defendant raped the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1.The dialogue content, the Kakao Stockholm, the photographic output content, the Kakao Stockholm dialogue content with D, and the criminal suspect’s Kakao Stockholm dialogue content;

1. A criminal investigation report, defense counsel, submission of reference materials and reference materials;

3. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel as to the attachment of photographs, investigation report (suspect specific), investigation report (on-site CCTV confirmation and field investigation), field (on-site CCTV verification) and on-site (on-site CCTV photograph).

1. The summary of the argument was that the Defendant did not commit any similar rape as indicated in the judgment.

2. Relevant legal principles

A. The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, this does not require that all possible doubts should be excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value should not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The victim's statement is consistent with the main part of the statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part of the statement in light of the empirical rule.