If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 15, 2015, at around 08:54, the Defendant discovered the Victim F (19 years old) who was waiting for subway at the subway platform 8-4 boarding home located in the subway E line in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Around December 15, 2015, the Defendant was able to find out the Victim F (nive, 19 years old), and the Victim was able to have his left arms reduced the part of the Victim’s interest and the half thereof.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in a densely concentrated place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. A criminal investigation report (report on telephone conversations with a victim), a criminal investigation report (CCTV video verification report);

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant of CCTV video CDs and his/her defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel argued that there was a physical contact between the defendant and the victim at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, but this argues to the effect that the defendant had no intention to conduct a drilling, since the defendant was driving his cell phone away from the platform floor at the time of the call and lost a balance of his body, and that there was a physical contact with the victim who was in the vicinity of the defendant.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, namely, ① the victim, as consistent from an investigative agency to this court, was not in contact with the victim’s body under the influence of alcohol at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, but rather, the victim was not able to walk to the right west of the victim, and the part of the victim’s hack and the part of the victim’s hacks down.

(2) At the time of the occurrence of the instant crime, the Defendant appeared to have appeared to have been under the influence of the Defendant at the Seoul metro, G and H’s staff G and H, which directly observed the instant crime at the time of the instant crime. However, even though the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant, he was not under the influence of the Defendant’s body, and the Defendant appeared to have been under the influence of the victim’s knife after coming to the west of the victim.