2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16090, Jan. 1

On April 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 03:30 to 04:00, at “D” located on the second floor, Gwangju Northern-gu C2 (hereinafter “the instant drinking house”); (b) the Defendant, an employee, and (c) the Victim E (V), who was sitting and drinking, and the Defendant, who was working for the drinking, kid, kid, and Austria.

"The victim's chest part of the victim's chest with his/her hand while making his/her speech, and the victim's bucks part of the victim's bucks only once, and the victim's indecent act was enforced.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness E;

1. Each police statement made in relation to F (tentative name) and E (tentative name);

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. A photograph of a closure;

1. The result of reproduction and viewing of on-site CCTV CDs [the defendant and his defense counsel denies that the defendant only dice with the victim while drinking alcohol in the instant drinking house, and that there is no fact that the victim made the victim a speech identical to the facts of the crime in the judgment, or that the victim's chest and buckbucks did not meet the victim's chest

However, in a case where a witness’s statement, including the victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statement objectively, unless it is objectively deemed objectively, and there is no other reliable evidence to deem the witness’s statement to be objectively acceptable. The mere fact that the witness’s statement in the major part is not somewhat consistent with the witness’s statement on other minor matters in the case of consistency, does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). According to each of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the victim has consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court as a substitute for the act committed by the defendant, the previous and subsequent circumstances, and the contents of the witness’s statement in this case’s former and subsequent circumstances, as well as the contents of the CCTV in this case’s statement.