At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was galking to the place of his own vehicle, and was not a state of drinking, and the Defendant stated English and neglected the victim, and the Defendant thought the victim as a bad, and reported it to the police, but did not leave the scene until the police gets out of the scene.

In addition, the victim was only a crime (crime) at the time and did not claim that the victim was a sex offense, and the scene of the accident was very clearly identified as lighting, such as restaurants and stations, and even though there were many people, the police did not request anyone to help before the misunderstanding. In light of these circumstances, the statement made by the victim is difficult to believe.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. Ultimately, the determination of this case is different depending on who the statements of the victim and the defendant are reliable, and the following circumstances, i.e., English, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below:

However, the language mainly used in Korean is not only the mother language, but also the Korean language, and the defendant, who is the defendant, was committed as if he knew of the Korean language that she was flock near the left side to use, she was flocked to the right side, and she was flicked to the effect that she was flicked to the her, and that she was flicking into Korean. ② The defendant was unaware of the victim's sexual indecent act before the error in the Korean language, but the police did not know of the victim's sexual indecent act before the error in the Korean language. However, the defendant flicked to the purport that she was not aware of the victim's sexual indecent act; however, after the report, she was flick to ask whether she was flick, because she was flick, and the victim was flick to 119th of the first day.