2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he did not commit an indecent act against the victim on the ground that the Defendant and his defense counsel did not have committed an indecent act on the ground that he did not have a state of being able to spread the victim because he did not have a kinyl chloride which contained kimchi at the time.

3. The Defendant strongly denies the facts charged and directly denies the victim’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in the record. In the event that all the remaining evidence are merely a specialized evidence based on the victim’s statement, etc., in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, the victim’s statement is required to have high probative value so as to be sufficient to doubt about the truth and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether such probative value is satisfied, the victim’s statement itself should be comprehensively taken into account not only the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, and personal factors, such as the victim’s sexual character (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 201, etc.). Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the facts charged in a criminal trial has to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge’s conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation.

If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the interest of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the victim's statement is practically the only evidence that directly conforms to the facts charged in the instant case (the witness E).