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

The defendant refers to the defendant against the victim B ( South and North, 21 years old) friendly C of this defendant, and "I am "I am tell that I am promptly because I do not want to see it," and on September 15, 2020, around 03:55 on September 15, 2020, I am in Jinyang-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, the victim "I am am directly me, I am am, I am like C am, Sick, 19 years of age.

"In doing so, the victim was pushed the victim's clothes and the breast part of the victim's breast at a number of times as a drinking and hand floor, followed, the victim abused the victim by tobacco with dangerous things, such as the defect of report to the police, the rear part of the victim by a locking cigarette that he was faced with, and thrown away, one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness B and C;

1. Written statements made by the police in relation to B and C;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no earthquake on the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body, as stated in the facts charged, that the defendant prices the part of the victim's body and the part of the defendant's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body and the part of the victim's body are not able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to

The summary of the above evidence is each evidence described in the summary of this court, in particular, the appearance and attitude of the above witnesses at the time of testimony in this court, the misunderstanding of the testimony, the consistency of each of the above witnesses' testimony in investigation agencies and in this court, the consistency of the above witnesses' testimony in this court, the concurrence of the contents of the testimony in the case of the witness B, and the fact that

D The telephone statement in the investigative agency is consistent with the above statements, and in case of D.