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

The defendant is a victim B (a family name, a female, 22 years of age) and a portrait.

Around 02:55 on April 22, 2020, the Defendant stated the “E convenience store” as “D convenience store,” but this appears to be a clerical error in the “D convenience store.” On the same day, the Defendant, at around 03:07, entered the victim’s house in Nam-gu, Busan, with the victim in Busan, and entered the victim’s house in Busan, with the victim’s sexual organ inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim, thereby having sexual intercourse once with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental or physical state of difficulty.

Summary of Evidence

Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “A protocol in which a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer recorded a statement of a person other than a defendant is prepared in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods, and the protocol is identical to the contents stated before a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer, and it is proved by a statement at a preparatory hearing or a trial date, a video-recording, or any other objective method, and the defendant or his defense counsel could have examined the original person on the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or a trial date, it may be admitted as evidence: Provided, That it shall be limited to the case where it is proved that a statement recorded in the protocol was made

In this court, the victim responded to the purport that the prosecutor's above written statement of statement was admitted to the authenticity of the prosecutor, but the prosecutor's interrogation or defense counsel's cross-examination was not made proper, and this was refused to testify against the defense counsel's cross-examination.