유사강간
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On November 1, 2013, at around 22:00 on November 22, 2013, the Defendant was entitled to alcohol to the victim E (the mother of the Defendant) at the house of Sejong Special Self-Governing City (the age of 35), and included the victim’s second finger in the victim’s sexual flag, she was allowed to take the victim’s arms and part, she was denied despite the victim’s refusal, she was placed in a sofaba, she was placed on the part of the victim’s arms and shoulder, and the victim’s chest and shoulder are divided into the victim’s chest and shoulder, she was fababba, and she was fababba, and the victim’s chest and shoulder were bab
The act of putting the fingers of the victim in part of the body of the victim by putting the fingers of the victim who intends to leave the job, putting both knife and knife the knife of both knife and knife the victim's knife and knife the part of the victim's body after the victim's back.
2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion is recognized as the fact that the defendant mentioned in the facts charged, fry the chest of E, frying the fingers of E, and frying the fingers of E at the time and place specified in the facts charged.
However, this is limited to the agreement with E and is not forced.
In addition, the defendant had sexual intercourse under the agreement with E, but did not become an origin, and there was no fact that the defendant puts his sexual organ into E's anus.
3. Determination
A. First of all, we examine the credibility of E’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the facts charged.
E is certain in the court that the defendant puts his or her sexual flag into his or her resistance.
“An extremely large number of pains” and “hys”.
집에 가서 봤는데 항문 주변이 빨갛게 부풀어 있었다.
In the hospital, the head of the military service provider had different questions in the port.
The testimony was made, and the investigation agency made a statement to the effect that the defendant had an anti-litious intercourse.
However, for the following reasons, E’s above statement is difficult to believe that its credibility is considerably doubtful.
(1) The background of the occurrence of the case in E.