성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On May 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) followed the victim E (nive, age 22) from the D’s station platform of the Jung-gu Seoul metropolitan subway No. 10:36 on May 18, 2015, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by her her son, etc., her knifeing the right shoulder in order to board the subway; and (b) her knife his knife with his son, etc., her knife with his knife.
Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in a densely concentrated place.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
A. The victim, in the first part of the subway Line D platform (which is placed in the order of 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 10-4, 9-3, 9-2, 9-1, 8-4, 8-3, and 8-3) of the subway Line D station platform (which is located in the order of 10-3, 10-2, 10-3, 9-3, 9-2, 9-1, 8-4, 8-2, etc.) of the subway Line 4, committed an indecent act in the course of the defendant's overtaking by the lapse of the 8th sentence.
Before the lapse of 9-3 doors, the Defendant had already been walking prior to the victim, and thus, when the victim passes between the 8 and 9 doors, the Defendant did not have the right to walk behind the victim.
B. The police seems to have conducted the investigation by specifying the place where the crime was committed in the vicinity of the 9-2 door of the subway line D line No. 4, the subway line platform. The Defendant had already walked prior to arrival of the place, and thus, the Defendant did not overtake the victim at that place.
(c)
Defendant may overtake the victim prior to the subway 4 line D platform 9-3, but police officers confirmed CCTV images taken by Defendant around the lapse of 9-3, but prior to that, the Defendant overtakeed the victim or was behind the victim, even though the CCTV images taken by Defendant was confirmed.