The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

피고인은 2011. 8. 14. 01:00경 남양주시 E에 있는 피고인의 여자친구인 F의 집 방 안에서 친구인 G, G의 여자친구인 피해자 H(여, 25세) 등과 술을 마시고 놀다가 위 F과 피해자는 방에서 잠을 자고, 피고인은 G과 함께 바람을 쐬러 집 밖으로 나가게 되었다.

After that, the defendant, at around 02:00 on the same day, had the goods, and entered the above house and was divingd in the room, and entered the part below the chest and got the shoulder of the victim by both hand, and had sexual intercourse with the victim once.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental condition.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of H and G;

1. Investigation report (field investigation);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed;

1. Article 37 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes in Public Order;

1. Determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion under Article 41(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserts that there is no fact that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim at the time and place of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court, and that even if the defendant had raped the victim, it was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.

2. Determination as to whether the defendant rapes the victim

A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be decided by the judge’s free evaluation of evidence is consistent with the discovery of substantial truth. Thus, the fact-finding judge who has a prior right to the determination of evidence does not have the awareness obtained in the trial proceedings and the evidence examined.