(Indecent Acts at Open Places)

The summary of the facts charged of this case begins from the Seocho-si around 12:00 on August 2, 2008, the defendant was involved in the city bus No. 301 at Busan National University, where he was seated in the city bus and was seated in the Gu office of the National Bank, and the defendant was seated in the Gu office of the Korean National Bank. The defendant's seat immediately before the defendant's seat was the victim's seat. The defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the means of public transportation because he was able to enjoy the defendant's loss. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by obtaining evidence as stated in the judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant did not commit an indecent act in court, is erroneous as affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to ensure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge, and if there is no such evidence, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

B. However, the Defendant asserts that there is no indecent act against the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, and denies the facts charged, and that direct evidence consistent with the above facts charged is sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged by the victim’s statement in the investigative agency, the court below, and the court of the trial. As such, whether the facts charged can be acknowledged depends on the victim’s statement.

First of all, considering the summary of the victim's statement, the victim was placed in front of the defendant who was seated in the bus at the time, but the victim saw that the defendant was able to have his own negative part of the finger hand hand that he was sculing, and the victim was sculed, and the defendant was sculed in the old Western National Bank because he did not know about the surrounding part and did not know about it. Thus, the defendant thought that he was sexual indecent act.

In full view of the following: (a) the victim’s statement is not only the victim’s perception at the time of damage and the circumstance in which the defendant was identified as the offender, but also there is no consistent and mutually contradictory point in the context where the statement was made; and (b) the victim did not demand compensation for any damage other than the death of the defendant; and (c) the victim did not look at any circumstance that the victim was unaware of the defendant; (d) at least the fact that the part of the physical disease or the part of the defendant’s hand, which was incurred by the defendant, was in contact with the victim’s negative part near the victim’s (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do428, Apr. 2, 2

However, in light of the following circumstances, if the defendant was unable to find that he was seated by the victim's seat (or physical disease), it is hard for the defendant to find that he was seated by the victim's seat, and the defendant was able to know by the evidence of each court below and the court below, i.e., "the victim was frighted by the defendant's seat (or 40 pages of the investigation record)" or "the victim was frightened by the victim's seat (or frightened by the defendant's seat)" or "the victim was frighten by the victim's seat (or frightened by the defendant's seat)" or "the victim was frighten by the defendant's seated by the victim's seat (or frighten by the defendant's seat)" or "the victim was frightful by the defendant's seat frighten by using the victim's seat fright," and second, the victim's seat was fright by the defendant's seat.

C. As above, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as the above Paragraph 1, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as seen in paragraph 3, and thus, it is not guilty in accordance

Judges Kim Young-young

Judge Lee Young-young