On May 29, 2017, from around 18:40 to 19:00, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim, who is a child or juvenile, on 24 occasions over 24 minutes, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, at the 3 lecture room of the pertinent private teaching institute from around 18:40 to around 19:00; (b) the Defendant was seated with an empty person facing the victim’s right side of the victim; (c) the Defendant taken a teaching instruction to the victim; and (d) the Defendant, on the part of the victim’s left hand, took up approximately five minutes of the victim’s right side

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do11, Jan. 20, 201). In light of the fact that major evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case includes a victim’s investigative agency and a victim’s statement in this court, and that it is difficult for the victim to find out some specific and specific motives or reasons for making a false statement, there is doubt of guilt as to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim’s statement, is insufficient to deem that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that it can be ruled out a reasonable doubt, and it is otherwise recognized.