Attorney C, D

On June 8, 2015, at around 21:49, the Defendant got in front of the entrance while getting in the center of the F Station in Seoul E, the Defendant got in front of the entrance. On June 8, 2015, the Defendant used the sound of the Victim himself.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

2. Determination

However, there are 1 victim's statements in investigative agencies and courts, each of which was submitted by the prosecution in order to prove the defendant's conviction, and the CCTV images of the FJ.

However, the FJ CCTV image is merely a photograph of the outside of the former while waiting for the movement of the Defendant and the victim, rather than a dynamic, that there was indecent act by compulsion. The victim I’s investigative agency and the legal statement are based on the victim’s statement, which is the main contents of the statement, that the victim was forced to commit indecent act by compulsion from the Defendant within the former vehicle, and reported to the police after hearing the statement that the victim was forced to commit indecent act by compulsion, such as the written facts in the facts charged, and that the victim was forced to drive back the Defendant to the police in the latter vehicle, and then reported the report to the police.

However, in light of the following circumstances, each of the victim's investigative agencies and this court's statements made by the victim by indecent act as stated in the facts charged by the defendant is insufficient to credibility.

① According to the F Station CCTV images and K submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant divided the Defendant’s wife and his workplace issues into KO from before he arrived at the front boarding train to before he was on the front boarding train. Until that time, the Defendant did not have the victim who was on food at the shop located behind the boarding vehicle after having arrived at the front of the Defendant’s boarding vehicle, and the Defendant was forced to commit indecent act by force (the Defendant was indicted of indecent act by force against the victim at around 21:49 immediately after he was on board the front boarding vehicle) and immediately after he was on board the front boarding vehicle, it appears that the Defendant’s wife and K dialogue continued to exchange the Defendant’s wife and the Defendant’s wife and the Defendant’s wife. It is natural to view that such Defendant committed indecent act by force against the victim while the Defendant continuously divided the Defendant’s wife and K.

② According to FV CCTV images, the Defendant, at the time, was using a white straw straw, using a white straw straw, etc., using a white straw straw at the time. However, a man waiting for a electric straw at the rear side of the victim’s driving, as in the case of the Defendant, was using a white straw straw straw, and used a white straw straw straw straw at the same time as in the case of the Defendant. In light of the possibility that a man’s straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw, and that the victim was on board the same straw straw straw straw, after his arrival at the time of indecent act by compulsion, the victim could not be seen as a man who committed an indecent act against him at the time of indecent act by compulsion, and the victim could not be mistaken from the Defendant’s testimony to the effect that the above male straw straw 2 other than the Defendant’s witness.

③ On the other hand, the victim tried to get on the front door at the investigative agency after being forced to commit indecent acts by compulsion. The victim stated that the male in front of the front door is able to use the front door and the front door door in the direction of the male in which the front door was accommodated and the front door was in front of the front door. The victim stated that the male's right hand she used the front door of the front door and the front door in the direction of the male in which the front door was in front of the front door, and that the prosecutor also stated that "after the front door was closed, the front door and the front door were in front of the front door." However, according to the "in this court's entrance, the victim was directly in front of the front door and the front door was able to use the front door at the time when the defendant made an indecent act by indecent acts by compulsion, etc., and the defendant did not have made any objective statement in front of the front door at the time when she made the statement."

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the above evidence and the remaining evidence presented by the prosecutor alone were proved to the extent that the fact that the defendant committed indecent act by compulsion as stated in the facts charged is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and the judgment of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is delivered with the order.