성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적공공장소침입)
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On July 7, 2016, at around 23:50, the Defendant: (a) went into a female toilet on the 1st floor of the shop in the Sejong Building Co., Ltd.; and (b) tried to steals the appearance of a female toilet on the 1st floor of the above commercial building; (c) taken a changeer into a female toilet screen; and (d) d (f) having reported a change in the side column immediately later (e.g., 36 years old); and (d) invaded the structure under his control against the victim’s will by the said toilet manager.
2. Determination:
A. The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial is to be established by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). (b) Even though the act of entering a homicide and building was contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the manager of the building, the act of entering the building in the building should be frightened (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the toilet recorded in the facts charged (hereinafter "the toilet of this case") was installed to the extent that it is difficult for the manager of the commercial building to use it as the entrance of the general public.