However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 22, 2017, the Defendant discovered 'D' 'D' 'D in the wife population C' 'D' 'D' 'D' 'D in the wife population C' on 04:10 on October 22, 2017, discovered out the victim E (n 27 years of age) and met the victim's growth with his hand at the lower place of the victim', and ruptured the victim's right to her hand, and rupe the victim's mari, light, etc. with his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of mental and physical loss or the state of impossibility of resistance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and defense counsel of the notification department of the 112 case report department

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as described in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall evaluate the credibility of the statements, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and the penology of the statement, etc. When the statements made by the victims, including the victims, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, they shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the credibility is objectively acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, the court shall not deny the credibility of the statements made in the witness examination protocol, on the grounds that the statements made in the witness examination protocol, including the victim, are inconsistent with the reasonableness, logic, and experience of the statements themselves or those made by third parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do784, Feb. 28, 2017).